Ministers' Deputies

At the present Human Rights meeting, the Committee of Ministers, sitting at the level of the Ministers’ Deputies, will supervise the execution of some 1193 cases in accordance with Article 46, § 2, of the Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Supervision is carried out in accordance with the Rules for the application of this Article adopted by the Deputies on 11 January 2001[1]. The Directorate General of Human Rights (Department for the execution of the judgments of the Court) and the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers provide advice and assistance to the Deputies in the fulfilment of their functions under the Convention. Information and communications relating to the cases should be addressed to these departments.

Below follows a short comparative survey of the meeting (the information on the nature of the cases in the different sections is described after the table):

		Meetings
Sections	871		863	854	847	841	834	827	819	810	803	798
General Questions											-	-
1.1	4		3	5	2	3	4	8	2	12	0	11
1.2	5		46	3	5	4	53	2	0	6	11	36
1.3	2		-	2	8	15	47	18	4	11	4	8
1.4	1		12	11	10	17	56	44	10	36	25	2
2	66		131	114	98	76	99	52	108	154	277	142
3.1.a	430		466	486	0	469	439	546	677	638	568	536
3.1.b	91		118	188	0	170	165	129	110	89	116	70
3.1.c	31		31	27	0	40	40	39	38	39	36	36
3.2	-		-	0	0	-	-	-	-	-	1	2
4.1	35		18	10	4	10	15	6	15	17	15	8
4.2	137		196	289	101	82	156	78	116	112	91	78
4.3	4		122	73	4	5	123	2174	2155	5	71	72
5.1	38		67	40	4	39	33	25	32	21	13	12
5.2	2		6	1	1	-	1	0	1	-	0	0
5.3	7		7	6	3	4	7	5	11	7	16	3
5.4	-		1	0	0	-	0	0	0	-	0	0
6.1	17		18	8	375	372	355	406	377	318	351	324
6.2	396		365	391	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total of the cases on the Agenda[2]	1193		1491	1559	615	1276	1479	3151	3186	1456	1595	1340
Total of final resolutions submitted	12		61	21	25	39	160	72	16	65	40	57
Total of new cases	66		131	115	98	76	99	52	108	154	277	142
Total of pending cases	3545		3540	3448	3352	3312	3380	3370	3327	3276	3187	2964

SECTION 1 – FINAL RESOLUTIONS

In the cases appearing under this heading the Deputies are invited to adopt draft resolutions putting an end to the supervision of execution carried out pursuant to Article 46§2 of the Convention (or former Articles 32[3] and 54 for cases decided before the entry into force of Protocol No. 11).

In these cases the Court (or the Committee) has either found a violation of the Convention or struck the case out of the list on the basis of undertakings made by the parties (for example in the case of friendly settlements – see Article 39 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court).

In all the cases, the Deputies have provisionally found, with the assistance of the Directorate General of Human Rights, that the required execution measures have been taken. The relevant information for each case has been summarised in a draft final resolution presented in Addendum 1. To facilitate examination, the cases are grouped as follows:

Sub-section 1.1. - Leading cases

In these leading cases the measures adopted aim at preventing new violations of the Convention (legislative or regulatory measures, changes of case-law, mere publication in those states where the Convention and the Court’s judgments are given direct effect, administrative measures or other measures) and/or at redressing adequately the individual situation of the applicant (among the measures which may be relevant mention may be made of reopening of proceedings, striking out a conviction from criminal records, granting a residence permit, etc.)

Sub-section 1.2 – Cases concerning problems already solved

This sub-section comprises cases which do not raise problems as regards the applicant’s individual situation, but which concern general problems which have already been solved in the context of similar earlier cases.

Sub-section 1.3 – Cases not involving general or individual measures

Contains cases which do not raise problems of a general or individual character. In these cases the mere dissemination of the judgment to the authorities directly concerned is considered sufficient.

Sub-section 1.4 – Friendly settlement and problems of a general character

This new sub-section groups friendly settlements relating to complaints concerning general problems already under examination by the Deputies in the context of other leading cases in which violations have been established.

No discussion of cases in Section 1 is envisaged since the examination of the different execution questions has already been carried out by the Deputies in the course of earlier meetings.

SECTION 2 – NEW CASES

Under this heading, the Deputies are called upon to conduct a first examination of the execution of the new final judgments delivered by the Court (Article 44 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention) finding violations of the Convention. The Deputies also supervise the execution of judgments striking cases out of the Court’s list (friendly settlements, non-pursuit of the application, or a solution to the dispute) and which contain specific undertakings (Article 39 of the Convention and Article 44 of the Rules of Court).

The examination of new cases is in general resumed after the expiry of the 3-month time-limit normally imparted by the Court for the payment of the just satisfaction.

In those cases where all execution measures have already been taken before this first examination, a draft final resolution summarising the relevant information could be submitted for adoption. Such draft resolutions appear in Addendum 2.

Discussion is envisaged mainly for cases which raise questions of individual measures or new general measures.

Dissemination of the judgments translated to all the authorities involved has been requested in all these cases.

SECTION 3 – JUST SATISFACTION

In these cases the Deputies are called upon to supervise the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court and, where required, of any default interest owed.

The section also presents the last cases in which the Deputies, in accordance with former Article 32§2 of the Convention, are called upon to decide on the question of just satisfaction on the basis of proposals submitted by the former European Commission of Human Rights or by the Committee of Special Advisors set up by Resolutions DH(99)681 and (2000)138 (see also decision 692/4.4 from December 1999).

Sub-section 3.1 – control of payment:

3.1.a: Supervisionof the payment of the capital sum of the just satisfaction as well as, where due, of default interest, in cases where the deadline for payment expired less than 6 months ago.

Delegations are invited to submit written confirmation of payment to the Directorate General of Human Rights (Service for the execution of the judgments).

3.1.b: Supervisionof the payment of the capital sum of the just satisfaction in cases where the deadline for payment expired more than 6 months ago.

3.1.c: Examination of special payment problems (for example the disappearance of the applicant, disputes regarding the exact amount paid as a result of exchange rate problems or administrative fees).

The further examination of the cases in sub-sections 3.1 a - c depends on the information received.

Sub-section 3.2 – Decisions on just satisfaction

The Deputies may be are called upon to take a decision on just satisfaction pursuant to former Article 32. The details of the cases are found either in a table presented under this sub-section, or, if the case is complex, in Addendum 3 II.

The examination of such cases will be resumed after the expiry of the 3 months time-limit set for payment.

SECTION 4 – CASES RAISING SPECIAL QUESTIONS

(individual measures, measures not yet defined or special problems)

The cases which appear under this heading require special attention to the extent that they either raise problems regarding the individual situation of the applicant, or concern problems in respect of which the necessary execution measures have not yet been defined, or raise other special problems (for example on account of the magnitude of the problems raised or delays in the adoption of the necessary execution measures).

Sub-section 4.1 – Supervision of individual measures only

This sub-section groups together cases in which the Deputies will exclusively examine the measures taken or to be taken in order to put an end to the violation found and/or remedy its consequences as far as the applicant’s individual situation is concerned – where the just satisfaction awarded by the Court has not done so.

Sub-section 4.2 - Individual measures and/or general problems

This heading presents both cases involving payment problems combined with general problems and cases in which measures have not yet been defined. For supervision of individual measures, see sub-section 4.1 above; for supervision of payment, subsection 3.1.c and for general measures, section 5 below.

Sub-section 4.3 – Special problems

This title groups together complex cases raising special problems.

Supplementary information relating to the cases under this heading may, where necessary, be found in Addendum 4.

As long as individual measures are outstanding cases are examined at each Human Rights meeting, unless the Deputies decide otherwise. Examination of other issues is decided upon on a case-by-case basis.

SECTION 5 – SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED

In these cases the Deputies are called upon to supervise the progress made in adopting measures of a general character defined at the national level and to ensure that these measures are apt to prevent new violations similar to those found by the Court. Cases are grouped together according to the nature of the main reforms envisaged.

In complex cases which require the adoption of several kinds of measures, cases are placed in the sub-section which corresponds to the main measures remaining to be adopted. A case may thus, for example, pass from sub-section 5.1 to sub-section 5.4 if the legislative changes required are rapidly adopted, whereas the implementation of the practical measures required turn out to take more time.

Sub-section 5.1 – Legislative and/or regulatory changes

In the cases in this group, the Deputies are mainly waiting for changes of legislation or of government regulations aiming at preventing new similar violations. Delegations of respondent States will thus furnish information about the content of draft legislation or regulations and on the procedure for their adoption.

Sub-section 5.2 – Changes of courts’ case-law or of administrative practice

This heading presents cases in which the Deputies are waiting for evidence (in the form of copies of judgments or decisions, statistics, etc.) of a change of the domestic courts’ case-law or of administrative practice, where such a change cannot, for one reason or another, be presumed solely on the basis of the publication or dissemination of the judgment (cf. the next sub-section).

Sub-section 5.3 – Publication / dissemination

This title encompasses in particular cases in which a change of court case-law or of administrative practice may be presumed, on the basis of evidence of the direct effect accorded to the Court’s judgments in general, as a result of simply publishing or disseminating the judgment in the case at issue, where necessary in translation into the national language. It may also concern other types of cases presenting a broader interest, such as those which imply important indications regarding the scope of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. In all these cases, the Deputies are normally waiting for details regarding the publication or dissemination carried out.

The Deputies are invited to present all relevant information in writing to the Directorate General of Human Rights (Service for the execution of the judgments of the Court).

Sub-section 5.4 – Other measures

This sub-section includes cases which primarily imply other types of general measures, for example practical measures such as the construction of prison facilities, the recruitment of judges, police training, etc.

Where necessary, supplementary information with respect to the cases in this section will be presented in Addendum 5.

Examination of these cases is normally resumed within 6 months’ time.

SECTION 6 – CASES PRESENTED WITH A VIEW TO THE PREPARATION OF A DRAFT FINAL RESOLUTION

In these cases, the information available at this meeting on the measures adopted appears to allow the preparation and presentation of a draft resolution putting an end to the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers.

Supplementary information with respect to the cases in this section will be presented, where necessary, in Addendum 6.

Examination is in principle to be resumed at the next Human Rights meeting.

Sub-section 6.1 – cases in which the new information available since the last examination appears to allow the preparation of a draft final resolution

This sub-section includes cases in which the preparation of a draft final resolution appears to be possible, in the light of new information available since last examination by the Committee of Ministers. The Committee is called to examine this new information with a view to approving the preparation of such a draft.

Sub-section 6.2 – cases waiting for the presentation of a draft final resolution

In these cases, the draft resolutions (prepared in collaboration with the Delegation concerned in cases raising questions of individual measures or new problems of a general character) aiming at putting and end to the examination of the case are not yet available at the time of issuing the annotated agenda and order of business.

If available in time for the meeting, drafts could be distributed separately.

GENERAL QUESTIONS

a. Adoption of the Annotated Agenda and Order of Business

Action

The Deputies are invited to adopt the present annotated agenda and order of business.

b. State of ratification by member States of the European Agreement relating to persons participating in proceedings of the European Court of Human Rights, the Sixth Protocol to the General Agreement on privileges and immunities of the Council of Europe and Protocols No. 12 and No. 13 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Action

The Deputies are invited to provide information on the state of signature and ratification of these four texts. Tables showing the current state of signature and ratification appear in Addendum General Questions.

c. Preparation of the next meeting (879th (5-6 April 2004)) see page 129

d. Working methods of the Deputies’ Human Rights meetings

Chairman’s proposals

Action

The Deputies are invited to examine the Chair’s proposals.

SECTION 1 - FINAL RESOLUTIONS

(NO DEBATE ENVISAGED)

(Addendum 1)

Action

The Deputies are invited to adopt the resolutions putting and end to the examination of the following cases as they appear in Addendum 1.

SUB-SECTION 1.1 – LEADING CASES

- 1 case against Austria

H46-827 30428 Beer Gertrude, judgment of 06/02/01

- 1 case against Greece

H46-961 38703 Agoudimos and Cefallonian Sky Shipping Co., judgment of 28/06/01,

final on 28/09/01

- 2 cases against San Marino

H46-813 24954 Tierce and others, judgment of 25/07/00

H46-814 35396 Stefanelli, judgment of 08/02/00, final on 08/05/00

SUB-SECTION 1.2 – CASES CONCERNING PROBLEMS ALREADY SOLVED

- 3 cases against Germany

H46-1 34045 Hoffmann, judgment of 11/10/01, final on 11/01/02

H46-2 45835 Hesse-Anger, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 21/05/03

H46-3 44324 Kind, judgment of 20/02/03, final on 20/05/03

- 1 case against Poland

H32-5 27506 Owczarzak, Interim Resolution DH(99)260

- 1 case against the United Kingdom

H46-6 24265 Devenney, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

SUB-SECTION 1.3 – CASES NOT INVOLVING GENERAL OR INDIVIDUAL MEASURES

- 1 case against Germany

H46-7 38365 Thieme, judgment of 17/10/02, final on 21/05/03

- 1 case against Italy

H46-8 44955 Mancini Vittorio and Luigi, judgment of 02/08/01, final on 12/12/01

SUB-SECTION 1.4 – FRIENDLY SETTLEMENTS AND PROBLEMS OF A GENERAL CHARACTER

- 1 case against the United Kingdom

H46-14 65334 Atkinson, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

SECTION 2 - NEW CASES

Action

The Deputies are invited to hold a first examination, under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the ECHR, of the following new judgments, delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (for further information, see the text of the judgments, http://www.echr.coe.int).

The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of these cases after expiry of the time-limit set for payment or according to the specific character of the cases.

PAYMENT OF JUST SATISFACTION

In all the new cases in which States should pay just satisfaction as ordered by the Court or as agreed in a friendly settlement, the authorities of the respondent State are invited to provide the Secretariat, in writing, with confirmations of payment.

INDIVIDUAL AND/OR GENERAL MEASURES

As regards any other execution measures which may be called for in the light of the conclusions of the Court, the authorities of the respondent State are invited, on a preliminary basis, to provide the Secretariat, in writing, with information on the measures mentioned after each case. The possible necessity to take other measures than those mentioned could nevertheless be addressed at the meeting.

Dissemination of the judgments translated to all the authorities involved is requested in all cases and delegations are invited to provide the written confirmation of this dissemination.

In all these cases, just satisfaction or sums agreed under a friendly settlement has been awarded to the applicants except in the following case: Ercolani and Ryabykh.

Section 2

- 2 cases against Austria

H46-15 40016 Karner, judgment of 24/07/2003, final on 24/10/2003

The case concerns discrimination against the applicant on grounds of his sexual orientation due to a decision of the Supreme Court in 1996 denying his right to succeed to a lease in the name of his late partner. The Supreme Court found that the term “life companion” in the Rent Act of 1974 did not include same-sex relationships. The European Court found that no convincing reason has been advanced to justify the narrow interpretation of the statutory provision at issue (violation of Article 14 in conjunction with 8).

The applicant died in September 2000.

Possible general measures: Publication and dissemination of the judgment to the competent domestic courts; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

*H46-16 57080 Pokorny, judgment of 16/12/2003 - Friendly settlement

The case deals with the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant (from 1993 to 2000) (complaint under Article 6§1).

The applicant’s complaint presents similarities to those raised in other cases relating to the excessive length of criminal proceedings, inter alia, Schweighofer against Austria, judgment of 09/10/2001, which was examined at the 863rd meeting (December 2003, sub-section 4.2).

- 4 cases against Bulgaria

Pre-trial detention – Length of criminal proceedings

H46-17 35825 Al Akidi, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003 rectified on 16/10/2003

H46-18 35436 Hristov, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

H46-19 35519 Mihov, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

The applicants in these cases, together with the applicant in the case of Ilijkov (judgment of 26/07/2001) were all co-accused in criminal proceedings concerning a fraudulent VAT refund. These cases concern the excessive length of the applicants’ detention on remand between 1993 and 1997 in view of the insufficient reasons to justify it (violations of Article 5§3). The cases of Hristov and Mihov also concern the non-adversarial nature of the proceedings before the Supreme Court in respect of the applicants’ requests for release (violations of Article 5§4). The Hristov case also concerns the lack of effective judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention on remand (violation of Article 5§4). Finally, the Hristov and Al Akidi cases concern the overall excessive length of the criminal proceedings (violations of article 6§1).

General measures: As regards the violations of Article 5§3 (excessive length of the detention on remand) and of Article 5§4 (lack of effective judicial review of the lawfulness of this detention on remand), these cases present similarities to the Assenov (judgment of 28/10/1998) and Nikolova (judgment of 25/03/1999) cases closed by Resolutions ResDH(2000)109 and ResDH(2000)110, following a legislative reform of criminal procedure which took effect from 01/01/2000.

As regards the violations of Article 5§4 (non-adversarial nature of proceedings before the Supreme Court) the Hristov and Mihov cases present similarities to that of Ilijkov, (sub-section 4.2 at the 879th meeting (April 2004)).

As regards the violations of Article 6§1, the Hristov and Al Akidi cases present similarities to the Kitov case which will be examined at the 879th meeting (April 2004, sub-section 4.2).

Section 2

*H46-20 39269 Kepenerov, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 03/12/2003

The case concerns the applicant’s confinement in a psychiatric clinic between 22 February and 22 March 1996 in order to undergo a psychiatric examination at the behest of a prosecutor. The European Court found that this detention had no legal basis in national law as the prosecutor had no power to issue such an order and had not sought a prior medical assessment of the need for the applicant’s confinement. Furthermore, the applicant had had no possibility to obtain an independent review of the lawfulness of his confinement (violation of Article 5§1).

General measures: This case presents similarities to those of Varbanov and M.S., which will be examined in sub-section 5.1 at the 885th meeting (June 2004) in the light of the progress in the adoption by the Bulgarian Parliament of a new Public Health Act; dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to all prosecutors.

- 2 cases against the Czech Republic

*H46-21 53341 Hartman J. and J., judgment of 10/07/2003, final on 03/12/2003

The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings concerning the restitution of some immovable property which had been confiscated in 1955 (violation of Article 6§1). In respect of the first applicant, proceedings began in 1992 and ended in 2002 (almost 10 years). In respect of the second applicant, proceedings began in 1995 and ended in 2000 and 2002 respectively (almost 5 years and 6 years and 3 months respectively). The case also concerns the fact that the remedies available in the domestic legal order (hierarchical appeal and constitutional complaint) could do nothing to accelerate the pending proceedings or compensate for their excessive length (violation of Article 13).

Possible general measures: In respect of the violation of Article 6§1, this case presents similarities with the case of Bořánková (judgment of 07/01/2003) (see sub-section 4.2); as for the violation of Article 13, information is expected about measures envisaged to ensure an effective remedy for complaints of excessive length of civil proceedings in the light of the Court’s findings indicating a structural problem; publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court.

*H46-22 48568 Schmidtová, judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 03/12/2003

The case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings before administrative and judicial authorities concerning the restitution of some immovable property which had been nationalised in 1945 (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings started before the Brno Land Register in February 1993 and were still pending before the Brno Regional Tribunal when the European Court delivered its judgment (10 years and 3 months).

Possible individual and/or general measures: Acceleration of the proceedings if still pending; measures are expected with a view to ensuring a reasonable length of administrative and judicial proceedings in the light of the considerable number of similar applications pending before the Court; publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court.

Section 2

- 6 cases against France

H46-23 49217+ SA Cabinet Diot and SA Gras Savoye, judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 22/10/2003

This case concerns an infringement of the applicant companies’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). In 1978, the applicants had been wrongfully obliged to pay VAT, as a Community directive exonerating certain operations, including those conducted by the applicant companies, from VAT. The applicant companies were also unable to recuperate the money. The European Court found that the state’s resulting debts towards the applicants were of the nature of “possessions” and that in any event they had at least a legitimate expectation of being able to obtain a refund. The Court found that the interference with the applicant companies’ possessions did not satisfy the requirements of the general interest. It also considered that both the refusal to reimburse the sums and the absence of any internal remedy enabling the applicants to obtain the safeguard of their rights had upset the fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights.

General measures: This case presents similarities with that of SA Dangeville (judgment of 16/04/2002) (see sub‑section 6.2).

H46-24 49580 Santoni, judgment of 29/07/2003, final on 29/10/2003

The case concerns the excessive length of proceedings before social security courts concerning an industrial accident (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings began on 15/02/1988 and ended on 11/12/1998 (10 years, 9 months and 25 days).

The European Court noted in its judgment that the National Industrial Accidents Commission was responsible for several periods of inactivity.

Possible general measures: Publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment, together with a circular, to the authorities concerned with industrial accidents.

*H46-25 57030 Asnar, judgment of 17/06/2003, final on 03/12/2003

This case concerns the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts and particularly the Conseil d’Etat (violation of Article 6§1).

The proceedings began in 1988 and ended in 1999 (more than 10 years and 10 months, 8 years and 7 months of which before the Conseil d’Etat).

General measures: This case presents similarities in particular to the Caillot case (see sub-section 6.2).

Length of proceedings before administrative courts

H46-26 46820 Zuili, judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 22/10/2003

H46-27 68155 Poilly, judgment of 29/07/2003, final on 29/10/2003

These cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations (Zuili) and criminal charges (Poilly) before administrative courts (violations of Article 6§1). In the first case, the proceedings began on 29/06/1990 and ended on 15/02/1999 (8 years, 7 months and 17 days for two degrees of jurisdiction). In the second case, the proceedings began on 25/03/1992 and ended on 18/10/2002 (8 years and nearly 7 months for three degrees of jurisdiction).

Possible general measures: These cases present similarities with that of Sapl and with other cases of length of proceedings before administrative courts (see sub-section 6.1).

Section 2

H46-28 50632 Coste Pascal, judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 22/10/2003

The case concerns the excessive length (about 15 years) of certain criminal proceedings in which the applicant appeared both as defendant and as a civil party, having brought an action for damages. The proceedings ended on 23/02/1999 (violation of Article 6§1).

- 2 cases against Germany

H46-29 44672 Herz, judgment of 12/06/2003, final on 03/12/2003

The case concerns the denial of the applicant’s right to a review of the lawfulness of his temporary detention in a psychiatric hospital in 1996, domestic courts having dismissed his applications on the ground that in the interim the detention orders had expired and that the applicant had escaped from hospital (violation of Article 5§4). The European Court considered that, in view of the gravity of such measures – be they only temporary – the mere fact that the detention order had expired could not deprive the applicant of the right to a review of the lawfulness of his detention.

General measures: On 30/04/1997, the Federal Constitutional Court accepted a constitutional appeal and found a violation of the right of the person concerned to an effective remedy, under Article 19§4 of the Basic Law, since the lower courts had refused to examine the legality of a house search on the grounds that it had already expired. Civil courts have followed this new case-law when examining the legality of detention measures (see §§ 39 and 67 of the Court’s judgment).

H46-30 57249 Herbolzheimer, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings before the Hamburg Regional Court (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings at issue began on 24/01/1991 and ended on 01/12/2000 (about 9 years, the proceedings having lasted more than 12 years in all).

Possible general measures: Publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to the courts directly concerned.

- 1 case against Hungary

*H46-31 52724+ Nyírő and Takács, judgment of 21/10/2003, final on 11/11/2003

This case concerns the excessive length of two sets of civil proceedings (subsequently joined) before labour courts (violations of Article 6§1). The proceedings began on 16/12/1991 and 22/07/1991 respectively and when the Court delivered its judgment they were still pending before the court of first instance (12 years and 12½ years, of which the period of 11 years fall within the Court’s jurisdiction). They involved three levels of jurisdiction and a referral following an appeal on a point of law.

The case presents similarities to those of Tímár and Simkó (judgments of 25/02/2003 and 08/04/2003) which will be examined at the 879th meeting (April 2004).

Possible individual measures: Acceleration of the domestic proceedings.

General measures: As regards Article 6, the Government provided, the following information in the context of the examination of the cases Tímár and Simkó: a reform of the judicial system was under way including the creation as of 01/07/2003, of three High Courts; Regional Courts could contribute efficiently to the reduction of the workload of the Supreme Court and to the examination of cases within a reasonable time; the Ministry of Justice has prepared a draft proposal allowing parties to complain in order to require the responsible court to continue proceedings without delay.

Section 2

- 1 case against Ireland

H46-32 50389 Doran, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

This case concerns the excessive length of civil proceedings instituted by the applicants against their solicitor, the vendors and the vendors’ solicitors in the context of their purchase of real property. The proceedings were instituted in July 1991 and completed in December 1999 (approximately 8 years and 5 months) (violation of Article 6§1). The case also concerns the lack of effective domestic remedy in respect of excessively long proceedings (violation of Article 13).

Possible general measures: Publication of the European Court’s judgment; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

- 1 case against Iceland

H46-33 44671 Arnarsson SigurÞór, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003

This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing by a tribunal, concerning a criminal matter (violation of article 6§1). In May 1997, the applicant was involved in a fight following which a person died, and was charged with kicking the victim in the head causing a cerebral haemorrhage which resulted in death. After having heard the witnesses and the applicant, the District Court acquitted him. Following an appeal by the prosecution, the Supreme Court sentenced the applicant in May 1998 to two years and three months’ imprisonment, basing its decision on a reassessment of the oral evidence given before the lower court without hearing evidence from him or the other witnesses. The European Court found that the issues to be determined by the Supreme Court when convicting and sentencing the applicant could not have been examined properly without a direct assessment of the evidence given by the applicant in person and by certain witnesses.

Possible individual and/or general measures: Publication of the European Court’s judgment; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

- 17 cases against Italy

11 cases concerning the failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants[4]

Item	Application	Case	Duration of the violation	Pending procedure
H46-34	66920	Battistoni, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003	+ 6 years & 6 months	No
*H46-65	45356	Conti Lorenza, judgment of 10/07/2003, final on 03/12/2003	+ 10 years	No
H46-36	59634	De Gennaro, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003	+ 6 years & 10 months	No
H46-37	63408	Ferroni Rossi, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003	+ 10 years & 2 months	No
H46-38	60464	Fezia and others, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003	+ 4 years & 5 months	No
H46-39	59454	Gatti and others, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003	+ 6 years & 3 months	No
H46-40	64151	Kraszewski, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003	+ 6 years & 6 months	No
H46-41	62020	La Paglia, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003	+ 12 years & 6 months	No
H46-42	60388	Marigliano, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003	+ 4 years & 10 months	No
H46-43	58408	Miscioscia, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003	+ 4 years	No
H46-44	62000	Tempesti Chiesi and Chiesi, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003	+ 11 years & 1 month	No

Section 2

These cases mainly concern the sustained impossibility for the applicants to obtain the assistance of the police in order to enforce judicial decisions ordering their tenants’ eviction, owing to the implementation of legislation providing for the suspension or staggering of evictions. The European Court concluded that a fair balance had not been struck between the protection of the applicants’ right to property and the requirements of the general interest (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). Furthermore, the Court concluded that, as a result of the legislation at issue, rendering eviction orders nugatory, the applicants had been deprived of their right to have their disputes decided by a court, contrary to the principle of the rule of law (violations of Article 6§1). All the applicants recovered their apartments between 1999 and 2001.

As regards general measures, all these cases are similar to that of Immobiliare Saffi, judgment of 28/07/1999, and the other similar cases which are proposed for examination in sub-section 4.2 on the basis of a draft interim resolution.

6 cases concerning the failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants

H46-45 60663 Cianfanelli Banci, judgment of 30/10/2003 - Friendly settlement

*H46-46 39179 Coviello, judgment of 11/12/2003 - Friendly settlement

*H46-47 59452 Della Rocca, judgment of 27/11/2003 - Friendly settlement

*H46-48 61998 Forte and Di Giuliano, judgment of 11/12/2003 - Friendly settlement

*H46-49 41932+ Istituto Nazionale Case Srl No. 2, judgment of 27/11/2003 - Friendly settlement

H46-50 65652 Piovano, judgment of 30/10/2003 - Friendly settlement

These cases concern the sustained impossibility for the applicants to obtain the assistance of the police in order to implement judicial decisions ordering their tenants’ eviction, owing to the implementation of legislation providing for the suspension or staggering of evictions (complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6§1).

They are similar to the Immobiliare Saffi case, judgment of 28/07/1999, (see sub-section 4.2).

- 1 case against Lithuania

*H46-51 50551 Siaurusevičius, judgment of 04/12/2003 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns the applicant’s complaint that he was deprived of access to the Supreme Court. In 1998, after having disallowed the cassation appeal of one of the applicant’s co-defendants, the Supreme Court disallowed the applicant’s cassation appeal as being “repetitive” (complaint under Article 6§1).

Possible general measures: To be specified on the basis of the recognition by the Lithuanian authorities that here has been a violation of Article 6§1.

- 1 case against the Netherlands

H46-52 48086 Beumer, judgment of 29/07/2003, final on 29/10/2003

The case concerns the excessive length of certain social security proceedings before administrative courts. Proceedings began on 16/08/1994 and ended on 21/07/1999 (4 years and 11 months for three levels of jurisdiction) (violation of Article 6§1).

Section 2

- 1 case against Norway

*H46-53 37372 Walston No. 1, judgment of 03/06/2003, final on 03/12/2003

The case concerns a violation of the principle of equality of arms due to the fact that, in 1996, in the context of certain civil proceedings, the High Court omitted to transmit to the applicants or their lawyer a copy of their opponents’ observations submitted pending appeal. The non-transmission of these observations was confirmed in 1997 by the Supreme Court (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The applicants may ask for the reopening of the domestic proceedings according to Article 407(7) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Possible general measures: Measures to ensure that interested parties have access to all documents relied upon by their opponents and that the significance of such documents will not be subject to the discretionary power of the court (§58 of the judgment). Publication of the judgment and wide dissemination to all the competent courts.

- 4 cases against Poland

H46-54 37774 P.K., judgment of 06/11/2003 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns the applicant’s complaints concerning the inhuman and degrading nature of the conditions of his detention in the Radom Remand Centre, where he was held in 1995, together with five other prisoners (among which some were heavy smokers), in a 12.49 m² cell which lacked adequate ventilation, sufficient natural lighting, and which had no running water or toilet (complaint under Article 3). The applicant also complained of the length of his pre-trial detention, between January 1995 and July 1996 (complaint under article 5§3), and of the censorship, in 1996, of his correspondence with the European Commission of Human Rights (complaint under Article 8).

The case presents similarities, concerning the issue of the length of pre-trial detention, with the case of Trzaska v. Poland (judgment of 11/07/2000 (see sub-section 4.2) and, concerning the right to uncensored correspondence with the Strasbourg organs, with the case of Niedbała against Poland (judgment of 04/07/2000), closed by Resolution ResDH(2002)124, following a legislative reform of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences in 1997.

Under the terms of the friendly settlement, the Government undertook to pay a certain amount of money covering pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs.

*H46-55 39597 Biskupska, judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 03/12/2003, rectified on 11/09/2003[5]

The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings began on 13/07/1995 and were still pending before the first-instance court when the European Court rendered its judgment (more than 7 years, 11 months).

Possible individual measures: Acceleration of the proceedings still pending at national level.

General measures: The case presents similarities to other cases of excessive length of civil proceedings including Podbielski against Poland, judgment of 30/10/1998 (see sub-section 5.1).

Length of civil proceedings

*H46-56 49920 Cwyl, judgment of 09/12/2003 - Friendly settlement

*H46-57 50511 Stańczyk, judgment of 02/12/2003 - Friendly settlement

The cases concern the length of certain civil proceedings (complaints under Article 6§1).

The applicants’ allegations present similarities to those raised in other cases relating to the excessive length of civil proceedings (inter alia, Podbielski against Poland, judgment of 30/10/1998) (see sub-section 5.1).

Section 2

- 1 case against Portugal

H46-58 55340 Sociedade Agrícola do Peral and other, judgment of 31/07/2003,

final on 31/10/2003

The case concerns the excessive length of two sets of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings began on 28/12/1995 and were still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court when the European Court delivered its judgment (7 years and 6 months).

The case presents similarities to the other cases relating to the excessive length of court proceedings (inter alia Oliveira Modesto and Others, judgment of 08/06/2000) to be examined at the 879th meeting (April 2004) for supervision of general measures.

Possible individual and general measures: Acceleration of the proceedings if still pending; information is expected about measures envisaged to ensure a reasonable length of administrative proceedings in the light of the Court’s findings indicating a structural problem.

- 1 case against Romania

H46-59 36017 Dickmann, judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 22/10/2003

The case concerns the Supreme Court’s annulment, in 1996, of a final court decision delivered at first instance establishing the validity of the applicant's title to property that had been previously nationalised. The Supreme Court intervened following an application for nullity lodged by the Procurator General on the ground of Article 330 of the Code of Civil Procedure which allowed him at any moment to challenge final court decisions. The European Court considered that by acting in this way, the Supreme Court had failed to acknowledge the principle of legal certainty and accordingly violated the applicant’s right to a fair trial. It also took the view that the Supreme Court had infringed the applicant’s right of access to a tribunal in that it had not recognised the court’s jurisdiction over disputes concerning recovery of property (violations of Article 6§1). Finally, the European Court found that the Supreme Court’s decision had violated the applicant’s right to respect for her possessions by annulling without justification and without compensation a final court decision that recognised the applicant’s property rights to the apartments in question (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The case presents similarities to the case of Brumărescu (judgments of 28/10/1999 and 23/01/2001) and other similar cases against Romania which were examined in sub-section 4.2 at the 854th meeting (October 2003) for supervision of general measures.

- 2 cases against the Russian Federation

*H46-60 52854 Ryabykh, judgment of 24/07/2003, final on 03/12/2003

This case concerns the Regional Court's annulment, in 1999, of a final court decision delivered at first instance awarding the applicant the revalued amount of her deposits with the Savings Bank of Russia which had dropped in value after the economic reforms in 1991. The Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court quashed this decision following an application for supervisory review lodged by the President of the latter court under Articles 319 and 320 of the Code of Civil Procedure which allowed him at any moment and without being party to the proceedings to challenge final court decisions. The Court found that by using the supervisory review procedure to quash the final court decision in the applicant’s favour, the Presidium of the Regional Court infringed the principle of legal certainty and thus the applicant’s right to a court (violation of Article 6§1).

Possible general measures: Information is expected on measures envisaged to abolish the procedure of supervisory review, which is the main structural problem at the basis of the violation found by the European Court as well as on interim measures envisaged to avoid to avoid repetition of the violation found; publication and wide dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to the domestic courts and prosecutors.

Section 2

H46-61 46133+ Smirnova, judgment of 24/07/2003, final on 24/10/2003

In 1993, criminal proceedings on charges of fraud were instituted against the applicants. The case concerns their repeated imprisonment on remand, for a total of 4 years and 4 months and 1 year and 6 months respectively, despite the absence of any properly reasoned judicial decision (violation of Article 5§§1 and 3). The case also concerns the excessive length of the criminal proceedings (more than 3 years and 4 months and almost 2 years and 6 months respectively) (violation of Article 6§1).

Finally the case concerns an interference in the private life of the second applicant due to the confiscation of her identity paper (“internal passport”) from August 1995 (upon her arrest) to October 1999. Under domestic law this document, which is necessary for many aspects of everyday life, should have been given back to her each time she was released from remand. The European Court found that the removal of the applicant’s identity card had no basis in domestic law (violation of Article 8).

The applicants’ convictions were quashed in 2002.

Possible general measures: As regards the violation of Articles 5§§1 and 3 and 6§1, the case presents similarities with that of Kalashnikov (sub-section 4.2 of the 841st meeting (June 2003)), in which the Committee of Ministers adopted Interim Resolution ResDH(2003)123 summarising the measures taken and envisaged by the Russian authorities in order to implement the Court’s judgment. The Committee will resume its supervision of the general measures in this case at latest in October 2004.

As for the violation of Article 8, measures are expected in order to ensure that seizure of identity papers by the investigation authorities are carried out in accordance with domestic law and that by the same token any administrative practice which breaks the law is punished; publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the domestic courts and investigating authorities.

- 4 cases against San Marino

Cases concerning the unfairness of criminal proceedings

H46-62 36451 De Biagi, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003

H46-63 34657 Forcellini, judgment of 15/07/2003, final on 15/10/2003

These cases concern the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings against the applicants, which led to their conviction in 1997 and 1996 respectively to three years and 10 months’ and four years’ imprisonment together with ancillary penalties, without ever having being heard by the deciding judge in a public hearing either at first instance or at appeal, in conformity with the law applicable at that time (violation of Article 6§1).

These cases present certain similarities with the case of Stefanelli (see sub-section 1.1).

Possible individual and/or general measures: Following the entry into force of a new law on 27/06/2003, the applicants may request the reopening of the unfair proceedings. The same law explicitly introduced the possibility for a defendant to be personally and publicly heard by the deciding judge in criminal proceedings at appeal; this possibility had been introduced in first instance proceedings by Law No. 83 of 1992.

*H46-64 35430 Ercolani, judgment of 25/11/2003 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings against the applicant, which led to his conviction in 1996 to two years and 5 months’ imprisonment, together with ancillary penalties without having ever being heard by the deciding judge in a public hearing either in first instance or in appeal proceedings, in conformity with the law applicable at that time (complaints under Article 6§1).

The proceedings at issue in this case are the same as those examined by the Court in the case of Stefanelli, (see sub-section 1.1).

The Court took note in this case of a friendly settlement agreed between the parties, according to which the government undertook to renounce collecting certain debts; to set aside its statutory right to be paid in preference to other creditors up to the sum of 800 000 000 lires; to grant the applicant a period of ten years for the payment of certain sums; to give favourable consideration to the applicant’s request for rehabilitation, should he decide to introduce such a request.

Section 2

*H46-65 69700 Tierce Vanessa, judgment of 17/06/2003, final on 03/12/2003

This case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings which lasted from 1993 to 2001, i.e. around 8 years and 9 months for two degrees of jurisdiction (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court noted that the reason for such a length was mainly the complexity of civil procedure in San Marino, characterised by the need to observe various statutory periods as well as the fact that civil judges have no power of initiative if the parties are inactive.

Possible general measures: Information is expected on measures undertaken or envisaged in order to accelerate civil proceedings.

- 1 case against Sweden

H46-66 38993 Stockholms Försäkrings- och Skadeståndsjuridik AB, judgment of 16/09/2003,

final on 16/12/2003

This case concerns the fact that the applicant company had been obliged to pay receiver’s costs arising out of a bankruptcy which was subsequently found to have been erroneous and annulled by the Supreme Court. The European Court found that since the applicant had not by its actions contributed to the declaration of bankruptcy, the error being solely attributable to the responsible court, the applicant company should not have to pay the resulting costs. The appropriation of the assets of the bankruptcy estate of the company in order to pay these costs on the basis of the erroneous declaration of bankruptcy by the Swedish courts was thus not proportionate to the public interest in the case (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The case also concerns the absence of an effective remedy under Swedish law which could be considered capable of providing relief for these grievances in respect of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (violation of Article 13).

Possible general measures: Publication of the judgment of the European Court; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

- 11 cases against Turkey

Interference in property rights and respect for home (properties in the North of Cyprus)

H46-67 16219 Demades, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

H46-68 16163 Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd and Michael Tymvios, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003

These two cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of certain properties located in the Northern part of Cyprus, insofar as they have been denied access to them and control, use and enjoyment of them, respectively since 1974 and 1988, the date on which, in the second case, the applicant company was given the property concerned (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). In the Demades case, the European Court also noted that the applicant’s house was fully furnished and equipped and that he and his family had made regular use of it; it therefore concluded that the fact that the applicant had been unable to use that property constituted an interference in his right to respect for his home (violation of Article 8).

Possible Individual and/or general measures: These cases present similarities with the Loizidou case, with the addition that in the Demades case a violation of Article 8 has been found. It is recalled that both violations are also under the Committee’s examination in the case of Cyprus against Turkey (see sub-section 4.3).

Section 2

Cases concerning inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted on the applicants

H46-69 29484 Esen, judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 22/10/2003

H46-70 29485 Yaz, judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 22/10/2003

These cases concern inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted on the applicants during their detention in police custody in 1993 (violations of Article 3).

Possible general measures: These cases present similarities to some 40 cases relating to the action of Turkish security forces in which the Committee has adopted two Interim Resolutions (DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98). The Committee will resume its supervision of the general measures adopted in these cases at its 879th meeting (April 2004).

H46-71 29422 Tepe Ayşe, judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 22/10/2003

The case concerns inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted on the applicant during her prolonged detention (15 days) in police custody in 1993 (violation of Articles 3 and 5§3).

Possible general measures: 1. Concerning the ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant, the case presents similarities to some 40 cases relating to the action of Turkish security forces in which the Committee has adopted two Interim Resolutions (DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98). The Committee will resume its supervision of the general measures adopted in these cases at its 879th meeting (April 2004).

2. Concerning the applicant’s prolonged detention in police custody, the case presents similarities to that of Sakık and others against Turkey (judgment of 26/11/1997) which was closed by a final Resolution, ResDH(2002)110, following the adoption of general measures by the Turkish authorities.

H46-72 26973 Yöyler, judgment of 24/07/2003, final on 24/10/2003

The case concerns the destruction of the applicant’s house and possessions in the south east of Turkey in 1994 (violations of Articles 3, 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No.1). The applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor in Izmir. However, the authorities failed to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations (violation of Article 13).

Possible individual and/or general measures: This case raises similar issues to those raised by certain other cases concerning actions of the security forces in Turkey, which will be examined by the Committee at its 879th meeting (April 2004).

The measures concerning the failure of the authorities to carry out an effective investigation are to be discussed at the meeting.

Friendly settlements concerning Actions of the Turkish security forces containing undertakings of the Turkish Government

*H46-73 37446 Kara and others, judgment of 25/11/2003 - Friendly settlement

H46-74 31731 Tosun Hanım, judgment of 06/11/2003 - Friendly settlement

*H46-75 31730 Yurtseven and others, judgment of 18/12/2003 - Friendly settlement

These cases mainly concern alleged violations of Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 13 and 14 of the Convention connected with the death and the disappearance of applicants’ relatives in June 1991 and October 1995.

General measures: According to the friendly settlements, the Turkish Government, in addition to payment of just satisfaction, undertakes in particular “to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all the necessary measures” – including the obligation to carry out effective investigations – to ensure that the right to life and the right to liberty and security are respected in the future. The Government also referred to the Committee of Ministers’ supervision of execution of other, similar judgments.

The applicants’ complaints and the governmental undertakings here at issue present similarities to those made in a number of other friendly settlements relating to actions of the Turkish security forces. They will be re-examined in sub-section 4.2 at the 879th meeting (April 2004) for supervision of their implementation.

Section 2

H46-76 24209 Y.F., judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 22/10/2003

The case concerns a violation of the right to respect for private life in that the applicant’s wife was forced to undergo a gynaecological examination after having been taken into police custody with the applicant in 1993 on suspicion of aiding and abetting the PKK.

The European Court considered that any interferences of this kind with the physical integrity of a person must be prescribed by law and require the consent of that person. However, the justification given for this interference did not fall within any of the categories of Turkish law authorising such interference (e.g. Article 17§2 of the Constitution and Article 66 of the Code on Criminal Procedure). Therefore, the interference at issue was not “in accordance with law” (violation of Article 8).

In December 1995 three police officers were charged with violating Mrs. F.’s private life by forcing her to undergo this gynaecological examination. The police officers were acquitted in May 1996 on the ground that they had had no intention of subjecting the applicant’s wife to degrading and humiliating treatment when they made her undergo this gynaecological examination, but were trying to protect themselves against a possible accusation of rape.

Possible general measures: Publication and wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

*H46-77 42560 Külter, judgment of 04/12/2003 - Friendly settlement

The case relates to the applicant’s complaints concerning the length of his detention on remand and the absence of a domestic remedy to contest it (complaints under Articles 5§3 and 13). It also concerns the length of certain criminal proceedings, which started in May 1992 and are still pending (complaint under Article 6§1).

The applicant’s complaints present similarities to those raised in the Demirel case (see sub-section 4.2).

- 3 cases against the United Kingdom

*H46-78 57067 Grieves, judgment of 16/12/2003 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns the unfairness of naval court-martial proceedings undertaken in 1998 and which resulted in the conviction of the applicant (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court found that certain shortcomings in the proceedings were such that the applicant’s misgivings about the independence and impartiality of his naval court-martial could be considered to be objectively justified. These shortcomings included the lack of a full-time Permanent President of Courts-Martial, the relative lack of detail and clarity in the briefing notes prepared for members of naval courts-martial and especially the fact that the Judge Advocate in a naval court-martial is not a civilian but a serving naval officer who, when not sitting in a court-martial, carries out regular naval duties.

Possible individual and/or general measures: Publication of the judgment of the European Court; other measures to be discussed at the meeting.

*H46-79 44277 Stretch, judgment of 24/06/2003, final on 03/12/2003

This case concerns a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of his possessions due to the denial in 1991 of his option for a further term of twenty-one years under a lease concluded with a local authority, on the ground that in granting the option, the local authority had exceeded its powers under the law applicable at the time. At the time of conclusion of the lease, however, neither the applicant nor the local authority had had any reason to believe that the option to renew was ultra vires. Furthermore, the option to renew constituted an important part of the lease given that the lessee undertook certain building obligations and otherwise would have had a limited period in which to recoup this expenditure (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Section 2

General measures: Since the events in the present case, the enactment of the Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997 has relaxed the strictness of incapacity applying to a local authority which purports to contract beyond its statutory powers. Section 2 provides for such a contract to have effect as if the local authority had had power to enter into it and had properly exercised that power, so long as the contract has been certified in the manner set out in the Act. No further general measures appear required at this stage to prevent future similar violations.

*H46-80 43185+ Price and Lowe, judgment of 29/07/2003, final on 03/12/2003

The case concerns the excessive length of civil proceedings (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings began in February 1986 and ended in March 1998. In particular, a period of eight and a half years elapsed between the issuing of the writ initiating proceedings in 1986 and the fixing of the date of the first hearing in August 1994.

This case presents certain similarities to the case of Mitchell and Holloway, to be dealt with under sub‑section 4.2 at the 879th meeting (April 2004).

Possible general measures: Publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the judicial authorities concerned.

SECTION 3 - JUST SATISFACTION

Action

The Deputies are invited to supervise the payment of just satisfaction in the following cases pending before the Committee of Ministers for execution supervision. The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of these cases in principle at their next Human Rights meeting.

3.a SUPERVISION OF THE PAYMENT OF THE CAPITAL SUM OF THE JUST SATISFACTION AS WELL AS, WHERE DUE, OF DEFAULT INTEREST, IN CASES WHERE THE DEADLINE FOR PAYMENT EXPIRED LESS THAN 6 MONTHS AGO

At the time of issuing the present Annotated Agenda and Order of Business, the Secretariat had not received the written confirmation of payment of just satisfaction and/or default interest in the following cases (see the table below summarising the total number of cases by States). The Representatives of the States concerned are invited to give the Secretariat written confirmation of payment of the sums awarded by the Court and/or the default interests.

- 1 case against Austria

H46-81 42484 Royer, judgment of 12/06/03, final on 12/09/03[6]

- 10 cases against Belgium

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-82 33400 Ernst and others, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03[7]

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-83 50855 Dautel, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

H46-84 52229 Gillet, judgment of 24/04/03, final on 24/07/03

- Default Interest to be paid

H46-85 51564 Čonka, judgment of 05/02/02, final on 05/05/02

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-86 49797 De Plaen, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-87 49522 Dooms and others, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-88 49546 Lefebvre, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-89 49794 Oval S.P.R.L., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-90 49495 S.A. Sitram, judgment of15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

- Friendly settlements[8]

H46-91 50567 Immo Fond’Roy S.A., judgment of 22/05/03 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against the Czech Republic

H46-92 29010 Credit and Industrial Bank, judgment of 21/10/03[9]

Sub-section 3.a

- 73 cases against France

- Just satisfaction to be paid

*H46-96 46044 Lallement, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

H46-97 43716 Susini and others, judgment of 03/06/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-98 48161 Motais de Narbonne, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02 and judgment

of 27/05/03, final on 24/09/03[10]

H46-99 44962 Yvon, judgment of 24/04/03, final on 24/07/03

H46-100 52206 Mokrani, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03[11]

H46-101 45019 Pascolini, judgment of 26/06/03, final on 26/09/03

H46-102 38410+ Fontaine and Bertin, judgment of 08/07/03, final on 08/10/03

H46-103 56616 Hager, judgment of 09/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-104 53607 Cohen and Smadja, judgment of 23/09/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-105 44081 Perhirin and 29 others, judgment of 14/05/02, final on 04/09/2002,

revised on 08/04/03, final on 08/07/03

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-106 42405 C.D., judgment of 07/01/03, final on 21/05/03

H46-107 50344 E.R., judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

H46-108 51434 Granata No. 2, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

H46-109 55926 Loyen and others, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

H46-111 49198 Schiettecatte, judgment of 08/04/03, final on 09/07/03

- Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

H46-112 56927 Appietto, judgment of 25/02/03, final on 09/07/03

H46-113 57115 Bouilly, judgment of 24/06/03, final on 24/09/03

H46-114 62274 Jarlan, judgment of 15/04/03, final on 15/07/03

H46-115 61173 Lechoisne and others, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

H46-116 44964 Louerat, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 13/05/03

H46-117 43543 Loyen René, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-118 46022 Loyen No. 2, judgment of 30/09/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-119 46096 Mocie, judgment of 08/04/03, final on 08/07/03

H46-120 63056 Mustafa, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

H46-121 59153 Plot, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

H46-122 57734 Raitière, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 24/09/03

H46-123 45256 Richeux, judgment of 12/06/03, final on 12/09/03

H46-124 55007 SCI Boumois, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

H46-125 60955 Seidel No. 2, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

H46-126 46659 Verrerie de Biot S.A., judgment of 27/05/03, final on 27/08/03

- Cases of length of criminal proceedings

H46-127 51803 Benmeziane, judgment of 03/06/03, final on 03/09/03

H46-128 52189 Mouesca, judgment of 03/06/03, final on 03/09/03

H46-129 49285 Rablat, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 24/09/03

Sub-section 3.a

- Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the labour court

H46-132 50342 Sanglier, judgment of 27/05/03, final on 27/08/03

H46-133 53584 Verhaeghe, judgment of 27/05/03, final on 27/08/03

- Default Interest to be paid

H46-134 67263 Mouisel, judgment of 14/11/02, final on 21/05/03[12]

H46-135 50528 Coste Thierry, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

H46-136 46802 Mac Gee, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

H46-137 48221 Berger, judgment of 03/12/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-138 36378 Bertuzzi, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 21/05/03

H46-139 51279 Colombani and others, judgment of 25/06/02, final on 25/09/02

H46-140 31520+ Richen and Gaucher, judgment of 23/01/03, final on 23/04/03

H32-141 25971 Proma di Franco Gianotti, Interim Resolution DH(99)566

H46-142 37971 Sociétés Colas Est, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 16/07/02

H46-143 35683 Vaudelle, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 06/09/01[13]

H46-144 29731 Krombach, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01

H32-145 31677 Watson John, Interim Resolution DH(2000)20

H46-146 37794 Pannullo and Forte, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-147 39594 Kress, judgment of 07/06/01 – Grand Chamber

H46-148 43722 Wiot, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

H46-149 43191 Laidin, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

H46-150 44797+ Etcheveste and Bidart, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H46-151 33395 L.R., judgment of 27/06/02, final on 27/09/02

H46-152 44451 A.A.U., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-153 41476 Laine, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

H46-154 39278 Langlois, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-155 48566 Richart-Luna, judgment of 08/04/03, final on 08/07/03

H46-156 40096 Versini, judgment of 10/07/01, final on 10/10/01

H46-157 44482 Hutt-Claus, judgment of 10/04/03, final on 10/07/03

- Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

H46-158 41358 Desmots, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 06/11/02

H46-159 56198 Société Industrielle d’Entretien et de Service (Sies), judgment of 19/03/02,

final on 19/06/02

H46-160 51179 Solana, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 04/09/02

H46-161 43719 Scotti, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 21/05/03

H46-162 60545 Perhirin, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 21/05/03

- Case of length of criminal proceedings

H46-163 49533 Barrillot, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

Sub-section 3.a

- Case of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the labour court

H46-164 50975 Jarreau, judgment of 08/04/03, final on 08/07/03

- Friendly settlements[14]

H46-165 33023 Meier, judgment of 07/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-166 49613 Garon, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-167 45172 Fentati, judgment of 22/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-168 41526 Pulvirenti, judgment of 28/11/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-169 42279 Diard, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-170 48167 Hababou, judgment of 26/04/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-171 47631 Lemort, judgment of 26/04/01 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Germany

H46-172 35968 Van Kück, judgment of 12/06/03, final on 12/09/03

- 5 cases against Greece

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-173 59506 Papageorgiou Georgios, judgment of 09/05/03, final on 09/08/03

H46-174 55794 Efstathiou and Michaïlidis and Cie Motel Amerika, judgment of 10/07/03,

final on 10/10/03

H46-175 41666 Kyrtatos, judgment of 22/05/03, final on 22/08/03[15]

- Default Interest to be paid

- Friendly settlements[16]

H46-176 49282 Marinakos, judgment of 04/10/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-177 47020 Kolokitha, judgment of 07/06/01 - Friendly settlement

- 192 cases against Italy

H46-179 25337 Craxi No. 2, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03

- Cases concerning failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants[17]

H46-187 41427 Del Beato, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

H46-190 36149 Losanno and Vanacore, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-192 34998 P.M. II, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-197 31012 Savio, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-198 35637 Tolomei, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-205 64450 Gianni Francesco, judgment of 10/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-206 46471 L.B. and others, judgment of 31/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-211 42357 Sartorelli II, judgment of 09/10/03 - Friendly settlement

Sub-section 3.a

- Default Interest to be paid

H46-213 44505 Shipcare S.R.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-214 36534 Osu, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02

H46-215 25639 F.L., judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-216 15918 Antonetto, judgment of 20/07/00, final on 20/10/00

H46-218 26161 Natoli, judgment of 09/01/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)178

H46-219 39221+ Scozzari and others, judgment of 13/07/00 – Grand Chamber

Interim Resolutions ResDH(2001)65 and ResDH(2001)151

- Cases concerning failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants[18]

H46-220 38011 Aponte, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-221 34999 C. Spa, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

H46-222 30879 Ciliberti Raffaele, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-223 34658 E.P. IV, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-224 33376 Folliero, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-225 31740 G. and M., judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03

H46-226 31663 Giagnoni and Finotello, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-227 32542 L.B. III, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-228 31548 Maltoni, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-229 46161 Pepe Giuseppa, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-230 33204 Tosi, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-231 36377 Zannetti, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-232 44481 A.C. VII, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-233 46515 Adriani, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-234 46964 Alpites S.P.A., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-235 47785 Angemi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-236 48412 Ar.M., judgment of 23/10/01, final on 23/01/02

H46-237 46958 Ardemagni and Ripa, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-238 44511 Bellagamba, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-240 39121 Bolla, Interim Resolution DH(99)480

H46-242 46980 C.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-243 46959 Circo and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-244 44504 Citterio and Angiolillo, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-245 47779 Ciuffetti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-246 47774 Conti Giuliana, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-247 35616 Coscia, judgment of 11/04/00, final on 11/04/00

H46-248 44500 Cova, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-249 45880 Cultraro, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-250 44513 D’Ammassa and Frezza, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02,

revised on 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H32-251 17482 D'Aquino and Petrizzi, Interim Resolution DH(96)28

H46-252 49372 De Pilla, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H32-253 39138 Di Fant I, Interim Resolution DH(99)488

H32-254 39139 Di Fant II, Interim Resolution DH(99)489

H46-255 44446 Di Girolamo and 6 others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-256 46976 Di Motoli and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-257 44480 E.G., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-258 46971 F.T., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-259 46968 Falconi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

Sub-section 3.a

H46-260 47781 Farinosi and Barattelli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-261 46965 Franceschetti and Odorico, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-262 47786 G.V. V, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-263 46963 Galiè, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-264 47773 Gianni, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-265 44418 I.P.E.A. S.R.L., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-267 44501 Il Messaggero S.A.S. VI, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-268 47777 Ilardi, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-269 44508 Immobiliare Il Messaggero del geometra Antonio Iorillo, judgment of 25/10/01,

final on 25/01/02

H32-271 40571 Lo Sardo, Interim Resolution DH(99)606

H46-272 46962 Lucas International S.R.L., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-273 46961 Maletti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-275 46957 Marcolongo, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-276 44517 Mari and Mangini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-277 46966 Massaro, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-278 46979 Mastrantonio Francesca, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-279 46973 Morelli and Nerattini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-280 44490 Murgia, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-281 39872 Nata, Interim Resolution DH(99)617

H46-282 44494 O.P., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-285 46967 Procaccianti, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-286 46969 Procopio, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-288 44409 Rizzo Giuseppe, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02, rectified on 04/07/02

H46-290 44479 Rosetti e Ciucci and C., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

H46-291 44527 Rossana Ferrari, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-295 47780 Santorum, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-296 36621 Scalvini, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/10/99

H46-298 44491 Sonego, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-299 56094 Sposito, judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02

H46-300 44486 Tebaldi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-301 44488 Vecchi and others, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-302 44528 Vecchini, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-303 44534 Venturini Alberto I, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-304 44445 W.I.E. S.n.c., judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

- Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the labour courts

H46-306 44532 Colacrai, judgment of 23/10/01, final on 12/12/01

H46-307 46975 Di Gabriele, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-308 46978 F.P., judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-309 51156 Fasulo, judgment of 28/02/02, final on 28/05/02, rectified on 12/09/02

H46-310 46974 Risola, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H46-311 46960 Trimboli, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

Sub-section 3.a

- Cases of length of criminal proceedings

H46-312 45267 F.R. and 3 others, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-314 44943 Orlandi, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01

H32-315 24170 Pesce Mario, Interim Resolution DH(97)468

H32-316 26806 U.O. I, Interim Resolution DH(98)52

H32-317 26781 U.O. II, Interim Resolution DH(98)129

H32-318 26782 U.O. III, Interim Resolution DH(98)130

- Friendly settlements[19]

H46-319 53708 Mas A. and 207 others, judgment of 07/06/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-320 53705 M.L. and 46 others, judgment of 05/04/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-321 42414 G.G. V, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-322 53231 Bologna, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-323 55673 Savarese, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-324 46079 Biffoni, judgment of 24/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-325 35997 Candela, judgment of 30/01/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-326 31928 F. and F., judgment of 24/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-327 39451 Fiorentini Vizzini, judgment of 19/12/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-328 39690 Gianotti Ricardo, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-329 31260 Lamperi Balenci, judgment of 21/02/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-330 47895 Sartorelli, judgment of 24/10/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-331 34714 Tacchino and Scorza, judgment of 18/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-332 36734 Visca, judgment of 07/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-333 45071 Capurro and Tosetti, judgment of 28/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-334 40979 Conte Riccardo II, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-335 40954 D’Alessandro, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-336 40982 Erdokovy, judgment of 01/02/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-337 40978 Mantini, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-338 40956 Marchetti, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-339 40952 Paderni II, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-340 45070 Persichetti and C.S.r.l., judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-341 28936 Piccinini II, judgment of 11/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-342 45065 Pirola, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-343 45058 Rettura, judgment of 17/10/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-344 43098 Romano, judgment of 28/09/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-345 45068 Toscano and others, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-346 41807 Centioni and others, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-347 41813 Musiani, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-348 41812 Piccirillo Aldo, judgment of 09/01/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-349 41823 Pascali and Conte, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-350 40363 Ascierto Ada, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-351 43063 Bello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-352 40975 Bucci, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-353 43094 C.B., judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-354 42999 Cacciacarro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-355 43020 Ciaramella Pasquale, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-356 42996 Cocca, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-357 43088 Coppolaro, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-358 43086 Cosimo Cesare, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-359 43087 Cosimo Rotondi, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-360 43083 D’Addona Simone, judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement

Sub-section 3.a

H46-361 43017 D’Ambrosio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-362 43059 D’Antonoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-363 40960 Dattilo, judgment of 05/04/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-364 43054 Del Buono, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-365 43051 Di Biase Leonardo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-366 43062 Di Blasio Concetta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-367 43030 Di Libero, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-368 43022 Di Mella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-369 43056 Fallarino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-370 43058 Foschini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-371 43096 G.A. IV, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-372 43093 G.P. VI, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-373 43075 Gallo Giuseppe, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-374 38975 Gioia Angelina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-375 43050 Gioia Filomena Giovanna, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-376 43074 Grasso, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-377 43072 Guarino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-378 43091 Iadarola, judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-379 42998 Iannotta, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-380 43101 Iannotti, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-381 43021 Iapalucci, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-382 43067 Izzo Italia, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-383 43065 Lanni, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-384 43102 Lepore T., Lepore M. and Iannotti T., judgment of 27/07/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-385 43068 Luciano, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-386 43095 M.C. X, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-387 43010 Mannello, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-388 43000 Maselli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-389 43018 Meoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-390 43069 Mercone, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-391 43057 Mongillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-392 43064 Nicolella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-393 43100 Orsini, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-394 43076 P.T. II, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-395 43012 Palumbo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-396 43052 Panzanella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-397 43061 Patuto, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-398 43060 Pizzi, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-399 43023 Pozella, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-400 43019 Rubortone, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-401 43055 Sabatino, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-402 43099 Santillo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-403 43085 Silvio Cesare, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-404 42997 Squillace, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-405 43084 Tontoli, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-406 43016 Truocchio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-407 43070 Vignona, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-408 43109 Zeoli Nicolina, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-409 43015 Zollo Clavio, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-410 43066 Zullo, judgment of 22/06/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-411 37118 Sergi, judgment of 11/04/00 - Friendly settlement

Sub-section 3.a

- 4 cases against the Netherlands

H46-412 39339 M.M., judgment of 08/04/03, final on 24/09/03[20]

H46-413 52750 Lorsé and others, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03

H46-414 50901 Van der Ven, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03

H46-415 51392 Göçer, judgment of 03/10/02, final on 21/05/03

- 8 cases against Poland

H46-416 45288 Ciągadlak, judgment of 01/07/03, final on 01/10/03

- Cases of length of civil proceedings[21]

H46-417 41033 R.W., judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

H46-418 42078 Sitarek, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03, rectified on 17/09/03

H46-419 71621 Chudyba, judgment of 23/09/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-420 73009 Górecka, judgment of 23/09/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-421 72662 Mazurkiewicz Piotr, judgment of 14/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-422 57465 Pieniążek Krzysztof, judgment of 28/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-423 75929 Szymański, judgment of 21/10/03 - Friendly settlement

- 14 cases against Portugal

H46-424 48206 Maire, judgment of 26/06/03, final on 26/09/03[22]

H46-425 54926 Costa Ribeiro, judgment of 30/04/03, final on 30/07/03

H46-426 52657 Textile Traders, Limited, judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03

H46-427 52412 Marques Nunes, judgment of 20/02/03, final on 20/05/03

H46-428 54566+ Moreira and Ferreirinha Lda and others, judgment of 26/06/03, final on 26/09/03[23]

H46-429 53795 Farinha Martins, judgment of 10/07/03, final on 10/10/03

- Default Interest to be paid

H46-430 50775 Sousa Marinho and Marinho Meireles Pinto, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

H46-431 38830 Czekalla, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

H46-432 44298 Tourtier, judgment of 14/02/02, final on 14/05/02

H46-433 48187 Rosa Marques and others, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 25/10/02

- Friendly settlements[24]

H46-434 54704 Ferreira Pinto, judgment of 26/06/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-435 48752 Coelho, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-436 49020 F. Santos Lda., judgment of 16/05/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-437 48233 Almeida Do Couto, judgment of 30/05/02 - Friendly settlement

Sub-section 3.a

- 20 cases against Romania

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-438 42930 Crişan, judgment of 27/05/03, final on 27/08/03[25]

H46-439 32926 Canciovici and others, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 24/09/03

H46-440 34647 Ruianu, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03[26]

H46-441 33343 Pantea, judgment of 03/06/03, final on 03/09/03[27]

H46-442 38565 Cotleţ, judgment of 03/06/03, final on 03/09/03

H46-443 31804 Chiriacescu, judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03

H46-444 38445 Erdei and Wolf, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

H46-445 31678 Gheorghiu T. and D.I., judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-446 32915 Ghitescu, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

H46-447 29973 Golea, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-448 31736 Grigore, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

H46-449 33176 Moşteanu and others, judgment of 26/11/02, rectified on 04/02/03, final on 26/02/03

H46-450 32268 Nagy, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03

H46-451 36039 Oprescu, judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03

H46-452 31172 Popa and others, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

H46-453 33631 Savulescu, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

H46-454 31680 State and others, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

H46-455 32269 Tărbăşanu, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

- Default Interest to be paid

H46-456 28342 Brumărescu, judgments of 28/10/99, 23/01/01 (Article 41) and 11/05/01

(rectification) – Grand Chamber

H46-457 32925 Cretu, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02

- 6 cases against the Slovak Republic

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-458 53376 Beňačková, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

H46-459 72022 Bóna, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

H46-460 54996 Chovančík, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

H46-461 60231 Klimek, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

H46-462 54822 Micovčin, judgment of 27/05/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-463 69145 Sika, judgment of 24/06/03, final on 24/09/03

- 3 cases against Spain

H46-464 68066 Gabarri Moreno, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03[28]

H46-465 62435 Pescador Valero, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 24/09/03[29]

H46-466 56673 Iglesias Gil and A.U.I., judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

Sub-section 3.a

- 1 case against Sweden

H46-468 36985 Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 21/05/03[30]

- 25 cases against Turkey

- Just satisfaction to be paid

H46-469 28490 Güneş Hulki, judgment of 19/06/03, final on 19/09/03[31]

H46-470 40153+ Çetin and others, judgment of 13/02/03, final on 13/05/03

Length of police custody

H46-472 41478 Şen Nuray, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03

H46-473 41000 Bektaş, judgment of 23/09/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-474 36596 Karatay, judgment of 28/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-475 39446 Köroğlu, judgment of 28/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-476 39447 Kovankaya, judgment of 28/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-477 36961 Satık, judgment of 25/09/03 - Friendly settlement

- Friendly settlements concerning actions of the security forces and containing undertakings by the Turkish Government

H46-479 28292 Ateş, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-481 32270 Doğan Ülkü and others, judgment of 19/06/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-483 24849+ Kalın, Gezer and Ötebay, judgment of 28/10/03 - Friendly settlement[32]

H46-485 39978 Oğraş and others, judgment of 28/10/03 - Friendly settlement

- Friendly settlement concerning freedom of expression

H46-487 37059 Zarakolu Ayşenur No. 1, judgment of 02/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-488 37059+ Zarakolu Ayşenur No. 2, judgment of 02/10/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-489 37062 Zarakolu Ayşenur No. 3, judgment of 02/10/03 - Friendly settlement

- Friendly settlements in case against Turkey concerning freedom of expression and containing undertakings of the Turkish Government

H46-490 27529 Caralan, judgment of 25/09/03 - Friendly settlement

- Cases concerning the independence and impartiality of the State security courts

H46-494 44057 Işık Ôzgür, judgment of 24/06/03, final on 24/09/03

H46-497 27696 Yalçın Halit, judgment of 24/06/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-498 42430 Yüksel Mustafa, judgment of 24/06/03, final on 24/09/03

- Case concerning delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

H46-503 26546 Acar Ahmet, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

Sub-section 3.a

- Default Interest to be paid

H46-504 24351 Aktaş, judgment of 24/04/03

H46-505 23536+ Baskaya and Okçuoğlu, judgment of 08/07/99

H46-506 25656 Orhan Salih, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 06/11/02

*H46-507 22876 Şemse Önen, judgment of 26/01/02, final on 14/05/02

- Friendly settlement[33]

H46-508 46649 Güler and others, judgment of 22/04/03 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Ukraine

- Default interest to be paid

H46-509 41220 Aliev, judgment of 29/04/03, final on 29/07/03

- 7 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-510 29178 Finucane, judgment of 01/07/03, final on 01/10/03

H46-512 39665+ Ezeh and Connors, judgment of 09/10/03 - Grand Chamber

H46-513 63737 Perry, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03[34]

H46-516 34962 Z.W., judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-519 44808 Mitchell and Holloway, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03

- Interference in private life due to covert police surveillance

H46-520 50015 Hewitson, judgment of 27/05/03, final on 27/08/03

H46-521 63831 Chalkley, judgment of 12/06/03, final on 12/09/03

- 1 case against « the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia »

- Default interest to be paid

- Firendly settlement[35]

H46-522 58185 Janeva, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

3.b SUPERVISION OF THE PAYMENT OF THE CAPITAL SUM OF THE JUST

SATISFACTION IN CASES WHERE THE DEADLINE FOR PAYMENT

EXPIRED MORE THAN 6 MONTHS AGO

Some of the cases appearing under this section concern late payment for reasons beyond the control of the governments concerned.

Expiry date

of the time-limit set

- 3 cases against France

H46-523 38396 Karatas and Sari, judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02 16/11/2002

H46-98 48161 Motais de Narbonne, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02 and

judgment of 27/05/03, final on 24/09/03[36] 02/01/2003

H46-524 33424 Nouhaud and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

- 1 case against Greece

H46-525 61351 Mentis, judgment of 20/02/03 - Friendly settlement 20/05/2003

- 60 cases against Italy

H46-526 33202 Beyeler, judgments of 05/01/00 (merits) and of 28/05/02 (Article 41) 28/08/2002

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

H46-528 51668 Lopriore, judgment of 11/12/01, final on 11/03/02 11/06/2002

H32-529 30423 Salini Costruttori Spa, Interim Resolution DH(99)673 22/10/2002

- Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

H46-530 44330 Principe and others, judgment of 19/12/00 - Friendly settlement 19/03/2001

H46-531 41806 Alesiani and 510 others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/2001

H46-532 41805 Arivella, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/2001

H46-533 41804 Ciotta, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/2001

H46-534 35956 Galatà and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01 27/08/2001

H46-535 44525 Ferrari Marcella II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

H46-536 44379 Finessi, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

H46-537 44343 Massimo Giuseppe I, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

H46-538 44352 Massimo Giuseppe II, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

H46-539 44345 Rinaudo and others, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02 25/04/2002

H46-540 44342 Gattuso, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 06/03/02 06/06/2002

H46-541 44333 V.P. and F.D.R., judgment of 12/02/02, final on 12/05/02 12/08/2002

H46-542 56226 Abate and Ferdinandi, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-543 56222 Centis, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-544 56206 Colonnello and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-545 56208 Conte and others, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-546 56202 Cornia, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-547 56224 D’Amore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-548 56217 De Cesaris, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

Sub-section 3.b

H46-549 56205 Dente, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-550 56225 Di Pede II, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-551 56221 Donato, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-552 56212 Folletti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-553 56203 Ginocchio, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-554 56204 Limatola, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-555 56207 Lugnan in Basile, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-556 56220 Mastropasqua, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-557 56211 Napolitano Giuseppe, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-558 56213 Piacenti, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-559 56223 Polcari, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-560 56219 Presel, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-561 56214 Ripoli I, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-562 56215 Ripoli II, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-563 56201 Sardo Salvatore, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-564 56218 Stabile Michele, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02 19/08/2002

H46-565 44334 Lattanzi and Cascia, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46-566 44341 Cannone, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

H46-567 44347 Carapella and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

H46-568 44350 Cecere Domenico, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

H46-569 44337 Delli Paoli, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

H46-570 44340 Gaudenzi, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

H46-571 44349 Fragnito, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

H46-572 44348 Nazzaro and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

H46-573 44351 Pace and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

- Cases of length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the labour courts

H46-574 43097 Nicoli, judgment of 22/06/00 – Friendly settlement 22/09/2000

H46-575 40151 Sciarrotta, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/08/2002

- Cases of length of proceedings before the Court of Audit

H46-576 54307 Meleddu, judgment of 21/02/02 – Friendly settlement 21/05/2002

H46-577 54316 Betti, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

H46-578 54293 Chiappetta Domenico, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

H46-579 54287 Ferrari Sergio, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

H46-580 54299 Libertini and Di Girolamo, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

H46-581 44359 Marrama, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

H46-582 54286 Strangi, judgment of 07/05/02 – Friendly settlement 07/08/2002

H46-583 54282 Amici, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46-584 54278 Leonardi, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46-585 54312 Manna, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

H46-586 54319 Sportola, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02 28/09/2002

- 1 case against Latvia

H46-587 58442 Lavents, judgment of 28/11/02, final on 28/02/03[37] 28/05/2003

Sub-section 3.b

- 2 cases against Poland

H46-589 30218 Nowicka, judgment of 03/12/02, final on 03/03/03[38] 03/06/2003

H46-733 34049 Zwierzynski, judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01 and judgment

of 02/07/02, final on 24/06/03[39] 24/09/2003

- 15 cases against Romania

H46-590 33912 Budescu and Petrescu, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02,

rectified on 09/07/02 09/10/2002

H46-591 32260 Surpaceanu Constantin and Traian-Victor, judgment of 21/05/02,

final on 21/08/02 21/11/2002

H46-592 29968 Hodoş and others, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 04/09/02 04/12/2002

H46-593 35831 Bălănescu, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

H46-594 34992 Basacopol, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2003

H46-595 32943 Fǎlcoianu and others, judgment of 09/07/02, final on 09/10/02 09/01/2002

H46-596 29053 Ciobanu, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02 16/01/2003

H46-597 33358 Oprea and others, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02 16/01/2003

H46-598 30698 Mateescu and others, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03 22/04/2003

H46-599 29769 Curuţiu A. and M., judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03 22/04/2003

H46-600 33627 Bărăgan, judgment of 01/10/02, rectified on 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03 05/05/2003

H46-601 32936 Drăgnescu, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03 26/05/2003

H46-602 33353 Boc, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03 17/06/2003

H46-603 32977 Găvruş, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03 26/05/2003

H46-604 33355 Popescu Nata, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03 07/07/2003

- 4 cases against Turkey

H46-605 25723 Erdoğdu, judgment of 15/06/00 15/09/2000

H46-606 34688 Akin, judgment of 12/04/01 12/07/2001

- Cases concerning delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

H46-607 27694 A.S., judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement 28/06/2002

H46-608 37087 Bekmezci and others, judgment of 27/06/02 - Friendly settlement,

rectified on 19/09/02 and 03/04/03 27/09/2002

- 1 case against the United Kingdom

H46-609 42007 Davies, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02, rectified on 13/09/02 13/12/2002

3.c EXAMINATION OF SPECIAL PAYMENT PROBLEMS (FOR EXAMPLE THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE APPLICANT, DISPUTES REGARDING THE EXACT AMOUNT PAID AS A RESULT OF EXCHANGE RATE PROBLEMS OR ADMINISTRATIVE FEES)

- 1 case against France

H46-612 54210 Papon, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 25/10/02

CM/Inf(2004)3

In this case, the applicant informed the Secretariat that the French authorities had paid only a part of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgment, more than half of the amount due being retained on the account of unpaid tax. At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), the Secretariat was invited to prepare, for general discussion at the present meeting, a memorandum on the questions raised by the attachment of sums awarded as just satisfaction (see document CM/Inf(2004)3).

- 1 case against Sweden

H46-613 34619 Janosevic, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 21/05/03[40]

CM/Inf(2004)3

The facts of the case are presented in sub-section 4.2.

Just satisfaction: By letter of 08/10/2003 the Swedish delegation informed the Secretariat that the payment of just satisfaction had been carried out in two portions. The first portion, covering damages to the applicant, was paid to the applicant’s solicitor on 14/08/2003.The second portion, covering the costs for trial procedures, was paid on 21/08/2003 in two parts: one part (SEK 182 541) was paid to the applicant’s solicitor, and the remaining part (SEK 141 811) was paid to the Swedish Enforcement Service to cover the applicant’s tax arrears.

At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), the Secretariat was invited to prepare, for discussion at the present meeting, a memorandum on the questions raised by the attachment of sums awarded as just satisfaction (see document CM/Inf(2004)3).

- 29 cases against Turkey

- Currency conversion problems

H46-614 27308 Demiray, judgment of 21/11/00, final on 04/04/01

H46-615 19279 Göçmen and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-616 19285 Karabulut Cemile and others, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 30/04/01

H46-617 19303 Şen Celal and Keziban, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01

H46-618 30947 Alpay, judgment of 27/02/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-619 26093+ B.T. and others, judgment of 14/11/00 – Friendly settlement

H46-620 25182+ Cankoçak, judgment of 20/02/01, final on 20/05/01

H46-621 25724 Cihan, judgment of 30/01/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-642 37094 Hattatoğlu, judgment of 26/06/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-622 31963 Özel and others, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-623 27697+ Yaşar and others, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

H46-624 19310 Yilmaz Hamit, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01

H46-625 19308 Yilmaz Zekeriya, judgment of 10/04/01, final on 10/07/01

In these cases the applicants and/or the Secretariat have identified various problems relating to the payment of just satisfaction. These problems concern mostly more or less substantial shortfalls in payment, due among other things to currency conversion.

The Turkish authorities have undertaken to examine these problems with a view to settling the outstanding amounts due in accordance with the Court’s judgments. Information is awaited on the progress made to that effect.

Sub-section 3.c

- Other payment problems

H54-626 22729 Kaya Mehmet, judgment of 19/02/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H54-627 21893 Akdivar, Çiçek, Aktaş, Karabulut, judgment of 16/09/96, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H54-628 24276 Kurt, judgment of 25/05/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and

ResDH(2002)98

H54-629 23818 Ergi, judgment of 28/07/98, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and ResDH(2002)98

H46-630 23763 Tanrikulu, judgment of 08/07/99, Interim ResolutionResDH(2002)98

H46-631 22535 Kaya Mahmut, judgment of 28/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-632 23531 Timurtaş, judgment of 13/06/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-633 21986 Salman, judgment of 27/06/00 – Grand Chamber, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H32-634 23179+ Yilmaz, Ovat, Şahin and Dündar, Interim Resolutions DH(99)434 and

ResDH(2002)98

H46-635 24396 Taş Beşir, judgment of 14/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-636 23819 Bilgin İhsan, judgment of 16/11/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-637 22676 Gül Mehmet, judgment of 14/12/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-638 22493 Berktay, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 01/06/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-639 24490 Şarli, judgment of 22/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-640 23954 Akdeniz and others, judgment of 31/05/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)98

H46-641 23144 Özgür Gündem, judgment of 16/03/00, Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106

In these cases, the applicants, their representatives and the Secretariat have raised various problems relating to the payment of just satisfaction. These problems mostly concern more or less substantial shortfalls in payment.

During the examination of these cases in the Committee of Ministers, some concerns have been expressed about the comprehensive and persistent shortfalls in payment of just satisfaction and Turkey has been invited to remedy this problem urgently.

Following a bilateral meeting held in Strasbourg on 18/02/2002 between the Secretariat and a delegation from Ankara, the Turkish authorities presented in April 2002 their own calculations in each of the outstanding cases. In many cases the shortfalls acknowledged by the authorities coincide with the figures submitted by the applicants (including the default interest and restitution of stamp duty erroneously deducted from the payments). However, in some of the cases the calculations differ notably as the payment was not made to the person, to the place or in the currency of payment prescribed by the Court.

On 07/06/2002, the applicants’ representatives responded to the Governments’ calculations by maintaining and further substantiating the sums claimed.

Between November 2002 and October 2003 the Secretariat, having examined the parties’ communications, sent letters to the Turkish authorities concerning 20 cases giving the details to facilitate payment in conformity with the judgments.

On 10/05/2003, the applicants’ representatives informed the Secretariat about the full payment of the shortfall in 9 cases which have been deleted from the cases listed above.

The confirmation of payment is still awaited in 11 other cases, in which the shortfall is clearly established.

Finally, concerning the 5 cases in bold, the Secretariat is continuing its contacts with the parties so as to provide the Turkish authorities, as soon as possible, with elements to accelerate payment in accordance with the Court’s judgments.

Table summarising the total number of cases by States

State	No confirmation of payment of the capital sum (3.a capital sums)	Payment after expiration of the time-limit set and no confirmation of payment of the interest due (3.a default interest)	No confirmation of payment of the principal capital sum although payment due since more than 6 months (3.b)	Special payment problems (3.c)
Austria	1
Belgium	3	7
Czech Republic	3
Spain	3
France	36	38	3	1
Germany	1
Greece	3	2	1
Italy	28	194	62
Latvia			1
Macedonia		1
Netherlands	4
Poland	8		2
Portugal	6	8
Romania	18	2	15
Russie
Slovakia	6
Sweden	1			1
Turkey	33	5	4	29
United Kingdom	12		3
Ukraine		1

Strasbourg, 10/02/2004

List of cases for which late information on payment of just satisfaction has been provided

up to 9 February 2004

(871st meeting, 10 and 11 February 2004)

The information presented in the table below is the sole responsibility of the states concerned. Bearing in mind the date upon which this information was communicated to it, the Secretariat has not yet had the opportunity to check it. This will be done for the next meeting.

Liste d’affaires pour lesquelles des informations tardives sur le paiement de la satisfaction équitable ont été fournies jusqu’au 9 février 2004

(871e réunion, 10 et 11 février 2004)

Les informations présentées dans le tableau ci-dessous relèvent de la seule responsabilité des Etats concernés. Compte tenu de la date de la transmission de ces informations, le Secrétariat n’a pas encore eu l’occasion de les vérifier. Cette vérification sera effectuée pour la prochaine réunion.

Item / Point	State / Etat	Application /Requête	Case/ Affaire	Section / Rubrique	Judgment of / Arrêt du	Final on / Définitif le
H46-17	BU	35825	Al Akidi	2	31/07/03	31/10/03
H46-18	BU	35436	Hristov	2	31/07/03	31/10/03
H46-19	BU	35519	Mihov	2	31/07/03	31/10/03
H46-30	D	57249	Herbolzheimer	2	31/07/03	31/10/03
H46-31	HU	52724	Nyírő & Takács	2	21/10/03	11/11/03
H46-61	RUS	46133+	Smirnova	2	24/07/2003	24/10/2003
H46-62	RSM	36451	De Biagi	2	15/07/03	15/10/03
H46-63	RSM	34657	Forcellini	2	15/07/03	15/10/03
H46-69	TR	29484	Esen	2	22/07/03	22/10/03
H46-70	TR	29485	Yaz	2	22/07/03	22/10/03
H46-67	TR	16219	Demades	2	31/07/03	31/10/03
H46-68	TR	16163	Eugenia Michaelidou Developments Ltd et Michael Tymvios	2	31/07/03	31/10/03
H46-94	CZ	40226	Červeňáková and others / et autres	3.a	29/07/03	29/07/03
H46-110	F	43627	Molles	3.a	28/01/03	28/04/03
H46-178	I	52763	Covezzi & Morselli	3.a	09/05/03	24/09/03
H46-180	I	43522	Grava	3.a	10/07/03	10/10/03
H46-181	I	56298	Bottaro	3.a	17/07/03	17/10/03
H46-182	I	32190	Luordo	3.a	17/07/03	17/10/03
H46-201	I	48728	Blasetti	3.a	03/07/03	03/07/03
H46-202	I	48840	Carloni Tarli	3.a	30/05/03	30/05/03
H46-204	I	40453	G.A. V	3.a	09/10/03	09/10/03
H46-207	I	63600	Notargiacomo	3.a	09/10/03	09/10/03
H46-208	I	60662	Nuti	3.a	03/07/03	03/07/03
H46-209	I	60661	Rogai	3.a	03/07/03	03/07/03
H46-210	I	67076	Santoro Franco	3.a	02/10/03	02/10/03
H46-212	I	54612	Zito & Corsi	3.a	10/04/03	10/04/03
H46-239	I	44442	Bevilacqua	3. a	27/02/01	27/05/01
H46-241	I	44457	Bonelli	3.a	01/03/01	01/06/01
H46-266	I	44447	Ianniti & others / autres	3.a	27/02/01	27/05/01
H46-274	I	44443	Marchi	3.a	27/02/01	27/05/01
H46-283	I	44468	P.B. V	3.a	01/03/01	01/06/01
H32-284	I	21707	Panissa, D., G. et A. Vittonetto	3.a	12/04/95	12/04/95
H46-287	I	44465	Rigutto	3.a	01/03/01	01/06/01
H46-292	I	44472	Rossi Valeria	3.a	01/03/01	01/06/01
H46-293	I	44461	Sacchi Roberto	3.a	01/03/01	01/06/01
H46-294	I	44466	Valerio Santoro	3.a	01/03/01	01/06/01
H46-305	I	44462	Zanasi	3.a	01/03/01	01/06/01
H46-478	TR	36203	Temel & others / autres	3.a	23/09/03	23/09/03
H46-482	TR	42428	Eren & others / autres	3.a	02/10/03	02/10/03
H46-484	TR	28504	Merinç	3.a	17/06/03	17/06/03
H46-486	TR	41926	Sarı Ramazan	3.a	31/07/03	31/07/03
H46-492	TR	45672	Dertli & others / autres	3.a	24/06/03	24/09/03
H46-493	TR	50102	Işık	3.a	05/06/03	05/09/03
H46-495	TR	44272	Kaya Orhan	3.a	05/06/03	05/09/03
H46-499	TR	40999	Yurtdaş & İnci	3.a	10/07/03	10/10/03
H46-500	TR	39810	Ramazanoğlu	3.a	10/06/03	10/09/03
H46-501	TR	31879	Değirmenci & others / autres	3.a	23/09/03	23/09/03
H46-502	TR	32984	Alfatli Ali & others / autres	3.a	02/10/03	02/10/03
H46-491	TR	37048	Demirtaş Nurettin	3.a	09/10/03	09/10/03
H46-511	UK	39482	Dowsett	3.a	24/06/03	24/09/03
H46-517	UK	36022	Hatton & others / autres	3.a	08/07/03	08/07/03
H46-515	UK	50390	McGlinchey & others / autres	3.a	29/04/03	29/07/03
H46-514	UK	57836	Mellors	3.a	17/07/03	17/10/03
H46-518	UK	53236	Waite	3.a	10/12/02	10/03/03
H46-203	I	60660	Ferretti Maria Grazia	3.b	06/03/03	06/03/03
H46-527	I	36732	Pisano	3.b	27/07/00	24/10/02
H46-610	UK	44652	Beckles	3.b	08/10/02	08/01/03
H46-611	UK	48539	Allan	3.b	05/11/02	05/02/03
H46-651	LAT	48321	Slivenko	4.1	09/10/03	09/10/03
H46-93	CZ	41486	Bořánková	4.2 + 3.a	07/01/03	21/05/03
H46-184	I	35777	Carloni & Bruni	4.2 + 3.a	09/01/03	09/04/03
H46-189	I	48145	Fabi	4.2 + 3.a	17/04/03	17/07/03
H46-193	I	59539	Pulcini	4.2 + 3.a	17/04/03	17/07/03
H46-195	I	36249	Rosa Massimo	4.2 + 3.a	17/04/03	17/07/03
H46-185	I	36268	Clucher II	4.2 + 3.a	17/04/03	24/09/03
H46-183	I	48842	Carbone Anna	4.2 + 3.a	22/05/03	22/08/03
H46-200	I	48730	Voglino	4.2 + 3.a	22/05/03	22/08/03
H46-191	I	58191	Mottola	4.2 + 3.a	22/05/03	22/08/03
H46-194	I	32385	Ricci Onorato	4.2 + 3.a	17/07/03	17/10/03
H46-188	I	36254	Del sole	4.2 + 3.a	17/07/03	17/10/03
H46-196	I	55725	Rosati	4.2 + 3.a	17/07/03	17/10/03
H46-186	I	33113	D'ottavi	4.2 + 3.a	17/07/03	17/10/03
H46-199	I	33692	Traino	4.2 + 3.a	17/07/03	17/10/03
H46-471	TR	27244	Tepe	4.2 + 3.a	09/05/03	09/08/03

SECTION 4 - CASES RAISING SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
(INDIVIDUAL MEASURES, MEASURES NOT YET DEFINED OR SPECIAL PROBLEMS)

(See Addendum 4 for part or all these cases)

Action

The Deputies are invited to supervise the progress made in the adoption of the implementing measures in the following cases raising several problems. Supplementary information on some or all the cases listed below will be issued in Addendum 4. The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of these items on a case-by-case basis.

SUB-SECTION 4.1 – SUPERVISION OF INDIVIDUAL MEASURES ONLY[41]

- 1 case against Belgium

H46-82 33400 Ernst and others, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03[42]

This case concerns searches carried out in 1995 in the homes and business premises of the applicants, four professional journalists and two associations of professional journalists. These searches were carried out as part of preliminary investigations in cases where no charge had been brought against the applicants (the concerned cases related to violations of professional secrecy, some of which seemed attributable to one or more members of the public prosecutor’s office).

The European Court found an infringement of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression (violation of Article 10), because the measures aimed at discovering their journalistic sources were not proportionate to the intended legitimate aims (among other things: preventing the disclosure of confidential information), particularly in the light of the inadequacy of the grounds for the searches and of the latter’s massive character.

The Court also found an infringement of the applicants’ right to respect for their home and private life (violation of Article 8), because of the inadequacy of the grounds for the searches, the broad wording of the terms of the search warrants, the great number of objects seized and the absence of information to the applicants regarding the legal proceedings that made the operation necessary.

Individual measures: At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), information was asked for concerning the reasons for which certain objects and documents were still in the hands of the judicial authorities.

General measures: At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), the Belgian delegation stated that bills relating to the protection of journalistic source were under discussion before Parliament. It also recalled that this judgment, like all other judgments of the European Court, is published in the official languages on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice. At the same meeting, the dissemination of the judgment to investigating magistrates and to the police, together with a circular, has been asked for, as well as information relating to the progress of the discussion before Parliament.

- 1 case against the Czech Republic

H46-92 29010 Credit and Industrial Bank, judgment of 21/10/03[43]

The case concerns the infringement of the applicant company’s right of access to a court with the power to review the legitimacy of the administrative and judicial decisions taken in 1993 by the Czech National Bank on the grounds that its financial situation had been unsatisfactory (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), there was discussion of the question as to whether the applicant company may apply for reopening of the impugned proceedings or lodge a fresh complaint before domestic courts challenging the substantive reasons for which the compulsory administration had been imposed on it in 1993. Information is expected in this respect.

General measures: Publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court.

Sub-section 4.1

- 2 cases against Finland

H46-95 32559 The Fortum Corporation, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

The case concerns the non-adversarial and thus inequitable nature of certain proceedings brought against the applicant company before the Supreme Administrative Court in 1995 by the Competition Office, in that two memoranda submitted to the Court by the Competition Office had not been communicated to the applicant. The European Court concluded that the applicant company had not been given an opportunity to comment on the memoranda at issue and therefore had been unable to participate properly in the proceedings (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), information was requested concerning whether the applicant company could ask for reopening of the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court.

General measures: The Finnish authorities confirmed that the judgment of the European Court was translated, published on Finlex and widely disseminated with a covering letter to various concerned authorities.

Since December 1996, procedure before the Supreme Administrative Court has been regulated by the Act on Administrative Court Procedure which allows (in Article 34) exceptions from the principle of communication to the parties of any evidence that may affect the resolution of the matter, particularly in cases when such communication is found to be “manifestly unnecessary”. Further information is expected on the domestic case-law concerning the application of Article 34 of the Administrative Court Procedure Act.

H46-676 27824 Posti and Rahko, judgment of 24/09/02, final on 21/05/03

The case concerns an infringement of the applicants’ right of access to a court in that they could not challenge before a court the lawfulness of certain decrees issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in 1996 and 1998 (based on the 1982 Fishing Act) restricting certain fishing rights leased form the state for the period 1995-1999 (violation of Article 6§1).

In 1991, the Supreme Administrative Court, seised by the second applicant with an appeal against a similar decree, had stated that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the merits of such a complaint.

The European Court found that article 6 of the Convention includes the right to seise a court with a complaint against a decree, decision or other measure which, albeit not formally addressed to any individual natural or legal person, in substance affects the "civil rights" of such a person or of a group of persons in a similar situation, whether by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons.

Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the European Court found that the interference with the applicant’s property rights was justified, being lawful and pursuing, by means proportionate to this aim, the legitimate general interest in protecting the fish stocks, notably as the administrative authorities had granted the applicants certain compensation for the loss suffered.

Individual measures: At the 847th meeting (July 2003), the Finnish delegation was asked whether the applicants may now lodge a judicial complaint against the impugned decrees. By letter of 27/11/2003, the delegation took the view that there is no reason to review the case of the applicants by national courts since neither the Finnish authorities nor the European Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. The applicants have themselves engaged no new court action.

General measures: The Finnish authorities have indicated that in all likelihood the courts will take into account the case-law of the European Court when deciding which statutes may be appealed against. Examples of relevant case-law are expected.

The judgment of the European Court has been translated into Finnish and published in the Finlex database. The Finnish Delegation confirmed its wide dissemination with cover letters to various judicial and administrative authorities, among which: the High Administrative Court, the Supreme Court, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, etc.

Sub-section 4.1

- 1 case against France

H32-644 33656 Lemoine Daniel, Interim Resolution DH(2000)16[44]

- 1 case against Germany

H46-647 46544 Kutzner, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 10/07/02

The case concerns in particular the fact that decisions of German courts withdrawing the applicants’ parental authority in respect of their two daughters constituted interference with their right to respect for their family life (violation of Article 8).

On 12/02/1997, the guardianship tribunal decided provisionally to withdraw the applicants' rights to choose where the children lived and to make decisions concerning the need for medical treatment. At that time, the children were 6 and 4 years old. On 27/05/1997, the tribunal entirely withdrew the applicants' parental authority over their two children.

Individual measures: The German Government informed the Committee that the local authority had convened a meeting on 08/08/2002 inviting the administration, the guardian, the parents, legal counsellors and human rights NGOs involved in this case. Furthermore, on 19/11/2002, the competent court appointed two psychological experts to examine whether and under what circumstances the children could be returned to their natural family without risk. The experts began work on 22/01/2003. On 11/03/2003 a meeting took place at the Bersenbrücke Court. At that meeting, the experts asked for increased contacts between the parents and their children, pending the outcome of the final study. On 21/08/2003, the reports of the experts were transmitted to the parties for comments. In mid-September, the two families in question requested to have the right to intervene in the judicial proceedings. The court decided that the two families were not formally and/or materially parties to the judicial process and, consequently, rejected their request. A last hearing with the children took place on 08/10/2003. On 28/11/2003 the court delivered its final decision, according to which the children are to return to their natural family. Information on the execution of this decision would be useful.

General measures: The judgment of the European Court was published in the Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift (Volume 2002, pp. 244-251) and transmitted to all authorities concerned.

- 1 case against Greece

H46-175 41666 Kyrtatos, judgment of 22/05/03, final on 22/08/03[45]

The case concerns several violations:

- The failure of the authorities to demolish two buildings near the applicants’ property in compliance with two decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court annulling the permits for their construction (violation of Article 6§1). This aspect of the case presents similarities with the cases of Hornsby (judgment of 19/03/1997) and Iatridis (judgment of 25/03/1999), etc., which appear in section 6.2 following constitutional and legislative measures already adopted in order to reinforce the administration’s obligation to comply with judicial decisions (Article 95§§ 4-5 of the revised Constitution, Act 3068/12/11/2002, establishing specific judicial monitoring of the administration and allowing seizure against the state’s private property).

- The excessive length of certain civil proceedings instituted by the applicants against their neighbour for trespassing on their property. These proceedings began on 31/01/1991 and when the Court delivered its judgment they were still pending at appeal (more than 12 years for two levels of jurisdiction) (violation of Article 6§1). This aspect of the case presents similarities, in particular to the case of Academy Trading Ltd, which appears in sub-section 6.2 following the measures already adopted (Law 2915/29/05/2001 which provides: restriction of the need to postpone trials, faster evidence procedures; more judges and court administrative staff, computerisation of courts and construction of modern court buildings).

Sub-section 4.1

- The excessive length of certain proceedings before administrative courts instituted by the applicants against an administrative decision ordering the demolition of their house because it had been built without a building permit. These proceedings began on 06/10/1994 and, when the Court delivered its judgment, they were still pending at appeal (more than 8 years and 3 months for one level of jurisdiction) (violation of Article 6§1). In order to remedy this violation several measures are already adopted (more judges and court administrative staff, computerisation of courts and construction of modern court buildings).

Individual measures: Information about the demolition of the impugned buildings is awaited. Information about the progress of the pending judicial proceedings would also be useful.

Other general measures under way: The judgment of the European Court was published on the official website of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr). At the 854th meeting (October 2003), in the context of the examination of the Dactylidi case, the Greek delegation announced that a draft law was under way amending the Code of Administrative Proceedings and aiming at accelerating proceedings before administrative courts, and that this reform would be finalised in 2004. Further information on this issue is awaited.

- 3 cases against Italy

H32-648 33286 Dorigo Paolo, Interim Resolutions DH(99)258 and ResDH(2002)30

The case concerns the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings as a result of which the applicant was condemned to more than thirteen years’ imprisonment for, among other things, involvement in a terrorist bomb attack on a NATO military base in 1993. His conviction was based exclusively on statements made before the trial by three “repented” co-accused, the applicant not having been allowed to examine these statements or to have them examined (violation of Article 6§1 taken together with Article 6§3d).

Individual measures: Given the circumstances of this case, the question of the reopening of the domestic proceedings was raised. Different legislative proposals aimed at introducing this possibility in Italian law have been examined by the Italian Parliament at least since 1998. The draft legislation proposed, however, did not allow for the reopening of procedures in all cases where this would be necessary in order to erase the consequences of violations of the Convention (cf. Recommendation No. R(2000)2) and, in particular, it was not applicable to the present case. On 22/03/2001, the Director General of human rights addressed a letter to the Italian authorities drawing attention to the shortcomings in the proposed text. Subsequently, at the 783rd meeting (February 2002), the Deputies adopted Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)30, encouraging the Italian authorities to ensure the rapid adoption of new legislation in conformity with the principles in the Recommendation No. R(2000)2 and decided to resume consideration of the matter once new legislation had been adopted or, at the latest, in October 2002.

By letter of 03/10/2003, the Italian delegation indicated that a draft law had been approved by the Chamber of Deputies on 28/07/2003 and was now pending before the Senate for final adoption (draft Law No. 2441/S). This text provides for the possibility to review criminal proceedings if a violation of Article 6 of the Convention has been found by the Court or the Committee of Ministers. If the violation of the Convention was found before the entry into force of the law, the request for revision must be introduced within 180 days after the entry into force, with the exception of cases concerning mafia and terrorism crimes, for which no revision will be allowed if the violation was committed before the entry into force of the law. Therefore, if this draft law were adopted as it stands, it would not be applicable to the case of Dorigo. The applicant’s lawyer raised this issue in a letter to the Secretariat on 15/09/2003 and requested that the applicant be immediately released, pending the outcome of a new trial (see Addendum 4 prepared for the 854th meeting (October 2003)). At the time of preparing this document, a draft Interim Resolution was being prepared for discussion at the present meeting, in accordance with the Deputies’ decision at the 854th meeting (October 2003). This draft will be distributed separately, as soon as it is ready.

Sub-section 4.1

General measures: Article 111 of the Italian Constitution, as modified in November 1999, gives Constitutional rank to a number of requirements contained in Article 6 of the Convention. This new constitutional provision has been implemented by Law No. 63 of 01/03/2001, which amends inter alia Article 513 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the law now in force, pre-trial statements made without respecting the adversarial principle by co-accused persons cannot be used in proceedings against a person without his consent (unless the judge establishes that the co-accused person’s refusal to be cross-questioned in the proceedings is the result of bribery or threats). This rule applies not only to statements made in the context of the same proceedings but also to those made in other proceedings. As regards pending proceedings, Law No. 35 of 25/02/2000 provides that statements that have not been questioned by the accused person can only be used against him/her in the debate as long as they are corroborated by other evidence.

H46-649 41879 Saggio, judgment of 25/10/01, final on 25/01/02

The case concerns in particular the fact that no effective remedy was available to the applicant in order to claim the payment of back pay from a company placed under compulsory administration or to contest the action of the liquidator because, at that time, judicial action was only possible after the list of debts had been established (violation of Article 13).

The new provisions, which entered into force in August 1999 (Law-Decree No. 270/99), now allow any creditor to contest the actions of a liquidator before the domestic courts. In the case at issue, however, the applicant cannot recover his sums as long as the compulsory administration proceedings, pending since 1995, are not finished.

Individual measures: The Italian authorities have been invited to take all appropriate measures to accelerate the pending domestic proceedings.

H46-650 57574+ Sulejmanovic and others and Sejdovic and Sulejmanovic, judgment of 08/11/02 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns the applicants’ expulsion to Bosnia-Herzegovina in March 2000 (complaints under Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention and under Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention).

According to the friendly settlement reached, the Italian Home Affairs Ministry has undertaken, in addition to the payment of certain sums to the applicants and to their lawyer:

1) to revoke the deportation orders in respect of the applicants;

2) to permit them to enter Italy with their families;

3) to issue them with residence permits on humanitarian grounds, valid for one year and renewable, allowing them to work and study in Italy;

4) to provide them with temporary accommodation, in association with the Rome local authorities, pending the finding of long-term accommodation in an equipped camp and to keep them informed of any development thereon;

5) to arrange with the competent authorities for the children of school age to attend school and be helped to make up for the school years lost after their expulsion to Bosnia;

6) to arrange with the competent authorities for a sick child to receive the medical attention she needs in the framework of the public health system.

Individual measures: The agreed sums were paid.

As regards the other undertakings:

- 1) The deportation orders were revoked on 18/10/2002 and the applicants’ names removed from the “Schengen” database.

- 2) All the applicants re-entered Italy, their travel being paid by the Italian authorities who also accepted to extend the time-frame agreed in the friendly settlement for their return.

- 3) All the applicants have been granted residence permits in conformity with the terms of the friendly settlement; information is expected as regards the renewal of the residence permits expired in November 2003.

Sub-section 4.1

- 4) Shortly after their return to Italy, in November 2002, the family of Izet Sulejmanovic settled in an equipped site where their grandmother lived. Three other families settled in an equipped site in October 2003. Further information is expected as regards the placement of Nenad Sulejmanovic’s family.

- 5) and 6) In reply to a letter of 29/05/2003 from the applicants’ lawyer signalling that no step had been taken yet by the competent authorities as regards undertakings concerning the schooling and medical care of the children, the Italian delegation recalled, at the 841st meeting (June 2003) that, on the basis of their residence permits, the applicants were entitled to benefit from the public school and health system and that specific action to be taken would be considered once they registered the children at schools and addressed the competent local health services. Subsequently, the Italian authorities indicated their intention to meet the applicants, at the end of June 2003, with a view to informing them about the concrete action required to benefit from educational and medical care services. Furthermore, they indicated that a voluntary association would be involved in the out-of-school support to the children. Information is expected on the follow-up given to these initiatives.

- 1 case against Latvia

H46-651 48321 Slivenko, judgment of 09/10/03 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns the deportation of the applicants, former Latvian residents of Russian origin, to Russia. The first applicant, whose father was an officer in the Soviet army, had lived in Latvia all her life. The second applicant, daughter of the first applicant, was born in Latvia and lived there until she was 18. In November 1994 the applicants’ registration (as “ex-USSR citizens”) in the Latvian residents register was annulled relying on the Latvian-Russian treaty of 1994 on the withdrawal of Russian troops. The applicants’ deportation was ordered in August 1996. They also lost the flat were they had lived. The applicants unsuccessfully challenged their removal from Latvia before the domestic courts. In July 1999 the applicants moved to Russia to join the first applicant’s husband and subsequently obtained Russian citizenship. The applicants’ deportation order prevented them from returning to Latvia for 5 years (this prohibition expired on 20/08/2001) and then limited their visits to 90 days a year.

The European Court found that the expulsion of the applicants could not be considered as necessary in a democratic society, in that they were at the material time sufficiently integrated into Latvian society and that their presence could not be construed as a threat to national security simply through belonging to the family of a retired Soviet soldier who was not himself considered to present such a danger and had remained in the country on retiring in 1986 (violation of Article 8).

Possible individual measures: At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), the Latvian delegation indicated that the measures to be taken in order to remedy the applicant’s situation were being examined by the authorities and asked for postponement of the examination of these measures to the present meeting.

General measures: Publication and dissemination of the European Court's judgment to authorities competent for deportation matters to allow them to apply the principles established by the Court in future, similar cases.

Sub-section 4.1

- 1 case against Lithuania

H46-652 41510 Jasiūnienė, judgment of 06/03/03, final on 06/06/03

This case concerns the executive authorities’ failure to execute a judgment of the Klaipėda Regional Court of 03/04/1996 requiring them to take appropriate measures to choose the form of compensation to be afforded to the applicant in respect of her late mother’s land, which had been nationalised during the Soviet occupation of Lithuania. The European Court considered that, at least from 02/06/1999 (the date of adoption of a law authorising the authorities in such cases to choose the most appropriate form of compensation under judicial control) the Lithuanian authorities, by failing to take steps to execute the judgment, had unjustifiably infringed the applicant’s right to a fair trial (violation of Article 6§1).

The Court also decided that, by failing to comply with the judgment, the national authorities had prevented the applicant from obtaining the compensation she could reasonably have expected to receive, and so infringed her right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). When the European Court rendered its judgment, the domestic judgment had still not been complied with.

Individual measures: By letter dated 27/08/2003, the Lithuanian Delegation provided the following information: On 14/03/2003, the Government’s agent informed the Governor of the region of Klaipėda, in writing, of the violations found by the Court in this case; subsequently, on 31/03/2003 the Governor of the region of Klaipėda asked the Mayor of the City of Palanga (the city where the contested piece of land is located) to find a solution to the problem. The text of the judgment of the European Court and its translation into Lithuanian were also presented to the authorities concerned. In another letter dated 12/06/2003, the Government’s agent repeatedly drew the abovementioned authorities’ attention to the applicant’s imperative demand to fulfil her right to the property which had belonged to her mother. The applicant refuses both the plot of land that was offered to her in compensation and any pecuniary compensation. The Palanga town council is trying to find another solution which could be accepted in this case. The Government’s agent has asked the Governor of the region of Klaipėda and the Mayor of Palanga to inform him of any further measures envisaged in order to implement the judgment of the European Court. During the 863rd DH meeting, the Delegation stated that the authorities were carrying on their efforts. Further information is awaited concerning the implementation of the impugned internal judgment.

General measures: In its letter of 27/08/2003, the Lithuanian delegation indicated that the judgment of the European Court had already been translated and transmitted by the Government’s agent to the local authorities concerned. The Government is aware of the aspects of Lithuanian law which raise problems in respect of the Convention. Furthermore, the judgment will be published this year in the annual compendium Europos žmogaus teisių teismo sprendimai bylose prieš Lietuvos Respubliką.

- 1 case against the Netherlands

H46-412 39339 M.M., judgment of 08/04/03, final on 24/09/03[46]

This case concerns the unlawful interception of certain telephone conversations of the applicant by a private individual with the assistance of the police who had, in 1993, suggested that the private individual concerned connect a cassette recorder to her telephone, carried out the connection and provided operating instructions.

The European Court considered that there had been interference by a public authority and that this interference had not been “in accordance with the law”, the conditions in force at the relevant time concerning telephone interception not having been met in this case (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: Information is awaited regarding whether the recordings at issue (and their retranscriptions) are in the possession of the authorities.

General measures: Publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the police, public prosecutors and the relevant judges (particularly the Supreme Court) are also awaited.

Sub-section 4.1

- 5 cases against Poland

Cases of length of civil proceedings

Item	Application	Case	Length of proceedings	Pending case	Proceedings started on
H46-654	53698	Górska, judgment of 03/06/03, final on 03/09/03	21 years and 6 months[47] (pending before the first-instance court, after the first judgment had been quashed by the appeal court)	Yes	21/12/81
H46-655	77746	Kroenitz, judgment of 25/02/03, final on 24/09/03	6 years (still pending before the appeal court)	Yes	23/12/96
H46-656	74816	Orzeł, judgment of 25/03/03, final on 25/06/03	13 years[48] (still pending before the appeal court)	Yes	23/03/90
H46-657	49349	Sobierajska-Nierzwicka, judgment of 27/05/03, final on 27/08/03	9 years and 7 months (still pending before the first-instance court)	Yes	10/09/93

These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1).

In the Górska case, the European Court found that, having regard to the applicant’s age (she was born in 1919), special diligence was required from the Polish authorities in handling the case. Also, in the Kroenitz case the Court indicated that the litigation was of crucial importance for the applicant (born in 1903) due, inter alia, to her age and disability. As far as the Orzeł case is concerned, the Court indicated that the proceedings (which dealt with a compensation claim for medical malpractice) were of considerable importance for the applicant since they were intended not only to result in compensation but also to enable the applicant to receive the best medical treatment.

Individual measures: At the 854th meeting (October 2003), the acceleration of the pending proceedings was requested.

Concerning the Orzeł case, the Polish authorities informed the Secretariat by letter of 24/11/2003 that the proceedings were still pending before the first instance court, after its previous judgment has been quashed. The Polish delegation also made reference to the hearings that were held in May, June, August and October 2003 and indicated that the case had been placed under the administrative supervision of the President of the Court as well as of the Ministry of Justice and that it was conducted diligently and efficiently.

Additional information on the progress of the proceedings in all cases, as well as on the measures envisaged for their acceleration (like, for example, treating the cases as priority ones) is expected.

General measures: These cases present similarities to the other cases relating to the excessive length of civil proceedings (inter alia, Podbielski against Poland, judgment of 30/10/1998) (sub-section 5.1).

H46-658 43786 Szymikowska and Szymikowski, judgment of 06/05/03 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns the length of civil proceedings (complaint under Article 6§1).

Individual measures: Under the terms of the friendly settlement, the government undertook to supervise the progress of the impugned proceedings. By letters of 02/07/2003 and 28/11/2003, the Polish authorities reported that the first-instance court had rendered its judgment on 19/03/2002 and that the proceedings were currently pending before the appellate court, which had decided to conduct a supplementary investigation by requesting an expert opinion on 25/06/2003. Due to the complexity of the case, the expert had asked for an extension of the time-limit. More information is awaited in this context.

Sub-section 4.1

- 1 case against Portugal

H46-424 48206 Maire, judgment of 26/06/03, final on 26/09/03[49]

The case concerns a violation of the right of the applicant (a French national) to respect for his family life due to the negligence of the Portuguese authorities in failing to enforce a French judicial decision of 1996 awarding him the custody of his son, born in 1995 (violation of Article 8). Following this decision, the child’s mother (a Portuguese national) took the child with her to Portugal where they lived in a situation of illegal displacement for a period of 4½ years. In the meantime, the Portuguese authorities applied before the domestic courts for judicial restitution of the child, invoking the Hague Convention of 25/10/1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the Convention of judicial co-operation between France and Portugal concerning the protection of minors, of 20/07/1983. In 1999, the competent domestic court ordered the child’s placement in the Institute of Social Reintegration; this decision was never executed because of the mother’s illegal behaviour. In 2001, the Portuguese authorities, given the passage of time, asked the competent court to suspend this decision. The court ordered the child’s examination by child psychiatrists. When the European Court delivered its judgment, these proceedings were still pending. At the same time, the competent court, at the Portuguese authorities’ request, provisionally awarded custody to the mother. When the European Court delivered its judgment, these proceedings were also still pending. In 2002, the applicant was granted visitation rights.

Individual measures: Information is awaited about the progress of the pending domestic proceedings as well as about the exercise of the applicant’s right to visit his child.

General measures: The publication of the judgment of the European Court and its wide dissemination to the competent courts and administrative authorities is awaited. The Secretariat is at present examining the legislative provisions provided by the Portuguese delegation.

- 4 cases against Romania

H46-438 42930 Crişan, judgment of 27/05/03, final on 27/08/03[50]

The case concerns the impossibility for the applicant to challenge before a court the lawfulness of the decisions of an administrative body (issued in 1991 and 1994 based on the Legislative Decree No. 118/1990) that granted him certain rights as a person who was persecuted on political grounds, following the repeal in 1997 of the possibility to lodge a judicial complaint against such decisions (violation of Article 6§1).

In 1998, a new legislative reform re-instituted the possibility of a judicial complaint in this field. Still, the European Court found that it was not sufficiently established in the circumstances of the case that the applicant could have used this procedure.

Individual measures: At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), information was requested concerning whether the applicant could make an application before the national authorities.

General measures: At the 863rd meeting, the Romanian delegation indicated that a few people are still in the applicant’s situation, most of them having already used the new judicial procedure. Confirmation is awaited of the publication of the judgment of the European Court in the Official Gazette and of its wide dissemination.

Sub-section 4.1

H46-440 34647 Ruianu, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 17/09/03[51]

The case concerns the non-enforcement of two final court decisions (issued in 1993 and 1995) enjoining the defendants to demolish a building illegally constructed on the applicant’s property (violation of Article 6§1). The European Court concluded that, in spite of the repeated requests of the applicant, the only adequate attempt to enforce the judgments had taken place only in 2000. Following this attempt, the subsequent requests made by the applicant for the enforcement of the judgments remained unsuccessful.

Individual measures: By letter sent to the European Court on 21/11/2003, the applicant requested the demolition of the building. At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), the Secretariat indicated that the execution of the individual measures in this case required the enforcement of the 1993 and 1995 court decisions. Information is awaited in this respect.

General measures: The general measures are being examined by the Secretariat together with the Romanian authorities. The confirmation of the publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court is awaited.

H46-659 29411 Anghelescu, judgment of 09/04/02, final on 09/07/02

This case concerns the annulment by the Supreme Court (in 1995) of a final court decision delivered at first instance establishing the validity of the applicant's title to property that had been previously nationalised. The European Court considered that by acting in this way, the Supreme Court had failed to acknowledge the principle of legal certainty and accordingly violated the applicant’s right to a fair trial. It also took the view that the Supreme Court had infringed the applicant’s right of access to a tribunal in that it had not recognised courts’ jurisdiction over disputes concerning recovery of property (violations of Article 6§1). The European Court also found that the Supreme Court’s decision had violated the applicant’s right to respect for his possessions by annulling without justification and without compensation a final court decision that recognised his property rights to the apartments in question (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

After the judgment of the Supreme Court, the property at issue was restored a second time to the applicant by a final court decision rendered on 17/03/1999 by the Bucharest Regional Court. The City Council of the town of Bucharest instituted revision proceedings against this decision, proceedings that were still pending when the European Court delivered its judgment.

Individual measures: At the 810th meeting (October 2002), the Secretariat indicated that measures should be taken to accelerate the proceedings aimed at revoking the applicant’s title to property. Information on the outcome of these proceedings is expected.

General measures: The case presents similarities to the case of Brumărescu (judgments of 28/10/1999 and 23/01/2001) and other similar cases against Romania, which were examined in sub-section 4.2 of the 854th meeting (October 2003) for supervision of general measures.

H46-441 33343 Pantea, judgment of 03/06/03, final on 03/09/03[52]

The case concerns the ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant by his fellow-prisoners in January 1995 during his detention on remand, in circumstances which engaged the state’s responsibility, and the shortcomings of the investigation carried out by the Romanian authorities into the facts of the case (violations of Article 3).

The case also concerns the illegality (acknowledged by the national courts) of the applicant’s detention on remand in July 1994, and the fact of his being kept in detention until April 1995 after the expiry of the warrant committing him to prison on 19 August 1994 (violations of Article 5§1).

The case furthermore concerns the fact that the applicant, whose detention was ordered by a prosecutor, was not brought rapidly before a judge (violation of Article 5§5).

Sub-section 4.1

Furthermore, the competent court took more than three months (December 1994 – April 1995) to rule on the applicant’s request to be freed from detention on remand (violation of Article 5§4). The case also concerns the fact that Romanian law did not provide the possibility to obtain compensation for illegal detention in the applicant’s situation (violation of Article 5§5).

Finally, the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant on 7 June 1994, which were still pending before the court of first instance when the European Court rendered its judgment, after having completed two procedural cycles, had lasted excessively long (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: Information is awaited concerning the possibility of a new evaluation of the accusations brought by the applicant against his fellow-prisoners and the prison warders, in the light of the European Court’s findings under Article 3 of the Convention. Moreover, information is awaited on the issue of whether the applicant may obtain compensation for his illegal deprivation of liberty, under the new provisions of the criminal code. Finally, information on the acceleration of the criminal procedure brought against the applicant is also necessary.

General measures: At the 863rd meeting, the Romanian Delegation indicated that, immediately after the issue of the European Court’s judgment, the General Prosecutor asked prosecutors not to order detention on remand for periods longer than 72 hours. Moreover, legislative reforms of the Code of Criminal Procedure in 2003 now provide the obligation to bring detainees before a judge within three days and for the granting of compensation for illegal detention in situations similar to the one of the applicant. Information on the publication and wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court, as well as on the measures required by the other aspects covered by the judgement, especially on the violation of Article 5§4, is awaited.

- 3 cases against the Slovak Republic

Cases of length of civil proceedings

Item	Application	Case	Length of proceedings	Proceedings started on	Proceedings pending
H46-660	53372	D.K., judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03	7 years and 2 months	15/01/1996	Yes
H46-661	65567	Piskura, judgment of 27/05/03, final on 24/09/03	8 years and more than 4 months	29/12/1994	Yes
H46-662	57983	Slovák, judgment of 08/04/03, final on 08/07/03	8 years and 4 months	02/01/1995	Yes

These cases concern the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (violations of Article 6§1).

General measures have already been adopted to improve the efficiency of the judicial system and avoid new violations, particularly in the context of the examination of the Jóri case which appears in sub-section 6.2 (Act No. 501/2001, which reduces the number of cases in which second-degree courts are competent at first instance and aims to accelerate the adducing of evidence; Act No. 385/2000, which regulates the civil and disciplinary liability of judges for unjustified delays in their cases; Amendment of 2001 to the Constitution, which provides for a constitutional petition for complaints of violations of human rights protected by international treaties).

Individual measures: Acceleration of the proceedings pending at national level. Information concerning the state of these proceedings is awaited.

General measures: The judgments of the European Court were published in Justičná Revue, issue No. 6‑7/2003.

Sub-section 4.1

- 3 cases against Spain

H46-464 68066 Gabarri Moreno, judgment of 22/07/03, final on 22/10/03[53]

The case concerns the failure to take account of a mitigating circumstance when determining the sentence imposed on the applicant. In 1996 the applicant was convicted of heroin trafficking by the Madrid Audiencia Provincial and sentenced to 8 years and 1 day in prison and a fine. The Audiencia noted that he had been suffering from acute depression, a mental disorder which it accepted as a mitigating circumstance. The applicant appealed on the basis of this mitigating circumstance, claiming that the court should have delivered a more lenient sentence. The Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the ground that the reduction in sentence he had been given by the Audiencia had not been manifestly disproportionate given the gravity of the offence. The European Court found that when the mitigating circumstance was taken into account, the applicant’s sentence under Spanish criminal law should have been of between 6 years and 1 day and 8 years of imprisonment. The legal certainty requirement inherent in the lawfulness principle should have entailed the rectification of the sentence, but it was not done (violation of Article 7§1).

Having been in custody since 13/05/1995, the applicant was released on licence on 25/07/1999.

Individual measures: Clarification has been sought concerning whether the conclusion of the European Court’s judgment may be noted in the applicant’s criminal record and whether he may apply to the domestic courts to reopen the impugned proceedings.

General measures: Publication and wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the competent authorities.

H46-465 62435 Pescador Valero, judgment of 17/06/03, final on 24/09/03[54]

The case concerns the lack of impartiality of a judge of the High Court of Justice which in 1999 had examined and rejected the applicant’s appeal against his removal from an administrative post at the local university. It subsequently emerged that the judge presiding over the section of the court responsible for examining his appeal had been a visiting professor at the same university. The European Court found that the judge had had regular, close professional connections with the applicant’s opponents and that this could give rise to fears on the part of the applicant as to the judge’s impartiality (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: Clarification has been sought concerning whether the applicant may request reopening of the proceedings before the domestic courts.

General measures: Publication and wide dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to the competent authorities.

*H46-1205 45238 Perote Pellon, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 25/10/02

The case concerns the lack of objective impartiality of a military court in that two of the judges sitting on the court which judged the applicant, the president and the rapporteur, had been involved in several investigatory procedures including the confirmation of the applicant’s indictment at appeal, the extension of his detention on remand and the rejection of his súplica appeal against this decision (violation of Article 6§1).

A chamber of the central military court, in a judgment dated 09/07/1997, sentenced the applicant to 7 years’ imprisonment for the crime of revealing secrets or information concerning national security or defence and cashiered him from the army. On 15/04/1999 he was released on parole having served three quarters of his sentence.

Sub-section 4.1

Individual measures: Clarification was sought concerning the possibility for the applicant to ask for the reopening of the impugned proceedings before the domestic courts. Additional information is expected in this respect.

General measures: Information was requested at the 827th meeting (February 2003) concerning the legislation in force and current judicial practice. By letter of 21/07/2003, the Spanish authorities sent the Secretariat the new law (No. 9/2003) amending that of 1987 on the competence and organisation of military courts. The law governs inter alia the rules concerning the composition of the military courts. In particular, the bench sitting at appeal was reduced from 5 to 3 members so as to exclude the possibility that a judge who sat at first instance could be included on the appeal bench.

Furthermore, the European Court’s judgment has been widely covered by the media and has been published in Spanish in the Official Journal of the Ministry of Justice No. 1955 of 15/12/2003 and transmitted to all competent constitutional and judicial authorities.

- 4 cases against Turkey

H46-663 29900+ Sadak, Zana, Dicle and Doğan, judgment of 17/07/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)59

The case concerns the violation of the right to a fair trial in proceedings before the Ankara State Security Court, which sentenced the four applicants, members of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, to 15 years’ imprisonment in December 1994.

The violations found are the following:

- lack of independence and impartiality of the tribunal due to the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court (violation of Article 6§1 - see §40 of the judgment);

- lack of timely information about the legal redefinition of the accusation brought against the applicants and lack of sufficient time and facilities to prepare the applicants’ defence (violation of Article 6§3 a and b taken together with Article 6§1 - see §§57-59 of the judgment);

- impossibility to examine or to have examined the witnesses who testified against the applicants (violation of Article 6§3d taken together with Article 6§1 - see §§67-68 of the judgment).

Having found these violations, the Court did not consider it necessary to decide separately the applicants’ complaints under Articles 10, 11 and 14.

Individual measures:

In view of the extent of the violations of the right to a fair trial and of their consequences for the applicants, the Turkish authorities were requested, at the 764th meeting (October 2001), to consider urgently specific individual measures to erase these consequences. (cf. Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation R(2000)2 and its Interim Resolution ResDH(2001)106 on the individual measures in cases concerning freedom of expression in Turkey).

Interim Resolution ResDH(2002)59: At the 794th meeting (30/04/2002), as no progress in the execution of the judgment was reported on this point, the Committee of Ministers adopted Interim Resolution in which it:

“Strongly urges the Turkish authorities, without further delay, to respond to the Committee’s repeated demands that the said authorities urgently remedy the applicants’ situation and take the necessary measures in order to reopen the proceedings impugned by the Court in this case, or other ad hoc measures erasing the consequences for the applicants of the violations found;”

On 03/08/2002 a new law came into force which introduced into the penal and civil codes the possibility of reopening proceedings but only in new cases (coming before the Court after 03/08/2002). This new law has been strongly criticised within the Committee of Ministers since it was inapplicable to the four applicants. A new urgent action in their favour was consequently requested. In view of the absence of such an action, the Secretariat was asked at the 810th meeting (October 2002) to prepare a new draft interim resolution. This was not adopted in view of the reopening of the impugned proceedings in Turkey (see below).

Sub-section 4.1

Adoption of new legislation and retrial: On 04/02/2003 a new law entered into force allowing the reopening of domestic proceedings in all cases which have already been decided by the European Court and in all new cases which would henceforth be brought before the European Court. The provisions however exclude re-opening for all cases which were pending before the Court at the date of entry into force of the Law.

On the basis of this new law, the applicants' request for retrial was accepted by the State Security Court of Ankara on 28/02/2003 and ten public hearings of the case have already been held by the same court (on 28/03/2003, 25/04/2003, 23/05/2003, 20/06/2003, 18/07/2003, 15/08/2003, 15/09/2003, 17/10/2003, 21/11/2003 and 16/01/2004). The Committee of Ministers welcomed the reopening of the impugned domestic proceedings.

However, the Committee has noted that successive requests to suspend the execution of the original prison sentence have been rejected by the State Security Court without convincing reasons being provided, notwithstanding the fact that the applicants continue to suffer the consequences of the violations found, i.e. imprisonment on the basis of an unfair trial.

This situation has given rise to calls for further measures to put an end to all negative effects for the applicants of the violations found. These requests have been reiterated at every meeting of the Committee of Ministers starting with April 2003. Moreover it has been suggested that the Prosecutor makes the proprio mutu request that the applicants are released in order to conform to the European Court’s judgment.

The Turkish delegation indicated that these concerns would be conveyed to the competent authorities. It also recalled that the question of suspension of the original sentence lies within the competence of the State Security Court, also stressing the fact that the public prosecutor enjoys the same guarantees as judges as far as his independence is concerned. So far the State Security Court has constantly rejected the request for release made by the applicants.

Following the mandate given by the Committee of Ministers at the 854th Meeting (October 2003), the President of the Committee addressed a letter to the Turkish authorities on 20/11/2003, expressing concern regarding the continued detention of the applicants and the alleged lack of fairness of the new trial, especially in relation to the presumption of innocence and the equality of arms.

While waiting for the answer of the Turkish authorities to this letter, the same expression of concern was reiterated by several delegations at the 863rd meeting (December 2003).

Follow-up by the Parliamentary Assembly: From the outset, the Parliamentary Assembly has been closely scrutinising the follow-up to the present judgment. At its 4th part session (23/09/2002) the Assembly held a debate and adopted Resolution 1297(2002) and Recommendation 1576(2002) on the implementation of the Court's judgments by Turkey. In these texts the Assembly, in particular, strongly supported demands to remedy the applicants' situation and urged the Committee of Ministers to use all means at its disposal to ensure compliance with the judgment without further delay.

In its reply to Recommendation 1576(2002), the Committee "welcomes the fact that (…) the criminal proceedings in the aforementioned case are to be reopened before the State Security Court of Ankara. The Committee nevertheless notes that the suspension of the execution of the original prison sentence of the applicants pending the new trial was not approved when the request to re-open proceedings was accepted. The Committee trusts that a new, fair trial will proceed expeditiously so as effectively to erase the consequences of the violations found by the Court."

On 30/04/2003, the Committee received a new written question (CM(2003)69) by Mr Erik Jurgens, a member of the Assembly, in which he "regret[s] notably that the execution of the original prison sentence imposed in the unfair proceedings had not been suspended" and "ask[s] if the Committee does not consider that to comply with the European Court's judgment Turkey must suspend the execution of [this] sentence (…) awaiting the new fair trial". A reply to this question was issued under the reference CM/AS(2003)Quest426-final and transmitted to the Parliamentary Assembly.

General measures: Measures have been adopted, particularly in the context of the constitutional reform, to replace the military judge in State Security Courts by a civil judge (see the case Çiraklar v Turkey, judgment of 28/10/1998, Resolution DH(99)555), strengthening the constitutional protection afforded to the right to fair trial.

Sub-section 4.1

H46-469 28490 Güneş Hulki, judgment of 19/06/03, final on 19/09/03[55]

The case primarily concerns the ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant while in police custody in 1992 which the European Court found to be inhuman and degrading (violation of Article 3). The case also concerns the lack of independence and impartiality of the Diyarbakır State Security Court on account of the presence of a military judge (violation of Article 6§1). Finally, the case concerns the unfairness of these proceedings: the applicant was sentenced to death (subsequently commuted to life imprisonment) mainly on the basis of statements made by gendarmes who had never appeared before the court. Furthermore, the applicant’s confessions, upon which the trial court had relied, had been obtained when he was being questioned in the absence of a lawyer and in the circumstances which led the European Court to find a violation under Article 3 (violation of Article 6§§1 and 3d).

Individual measures: In view of the seriousness of violation of the right to a fair trial and of its consequences for the applicant, the Turkish authorities were asked, at the 863rd meeting (December 2003), to consider specific individual measures to erase these consequences. This information is still being awaited. In this respect, the case presents similarities to that of Sadak, Zana, Dicle and Doğan (Section 4.1).

Legislation concerning the reopening of proceedings: On 04/02/2003 a new law entered into force allowing the reopening of domestic proceedings in all cases which have already been decided by the European Court and in all new cases which would henceforth be brought before the European Court. These provisions however exclude re-opening for all cases – including the present case – which were pending before the Court at the date of entry into force of the law.

General measures:

1. Publication and wide dissemination of the judgment to the competent authorities. This information is still being awaited.

2. Concerning the ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant, the general measures are underway in cases concerning action of the Turkish security forces which are pending before the Committee.

3. Concerning the independence and impartiality of state security courts, the general measures were adopted by the Turkish authorities in the Çıraklar v. Turkey case (ResDH99(555).

4. Concerning the fairness of the proceedings, the Committee may consider taking general measures at a future meeting.

- Friendly settlements in cases concerning freedom of expression and containing undertakings of the Turkish Government[56]

H46-490 27529 Caralan, judgment of 25/09/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-491 37048 Demirtaş Nurettin, judgment of 09/10/03 - Friendly settlement

- 2 cases against the United Kingdom

H54-666 19187 Saunders, judgment of 17/12/96, Interim Resolution DH(2000)27

H46-667 29522 I.J.L., G.M.R., and A.K.P., judgment of 19/09/00, final on 19/12/00, and judgment of 25/09/01 (Article 41), final on 25/12/01

These cases concern the violation of the applicants’ right not to incriminate themselves and thus their right to a fair trial in that, at the trial that led to their criminal conviction in 1990 for offences under business criminal law, the prosecution made use of statements given earlier under legal compulsion to Department of Trade and Industry Inspectors, in different proceedings, (violations of Article 6§1).

General measures: The 1999 Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act limited the possibility to make use of evidence obtained under legal compulsion against accused persons. The reform took effect as from April 2000.

Sub-section 4.1

Individual measures: As far as the case of I.J.L., G.M.R. and A.K.P is concerned, the applicants have complained to the Committee of Ministers that they cannot obtain the reopening of their trial. They have asked for the law to be changed to allow courts to quash convictions found by the European Court to be in violation of the Convention, even if the source of such violation is a provision of primary legislation. Alternatively, they request the adoption of ad hoc measures (such as an executive pardon, the repayment of the fines, etc.) based on the idea that, in view of the passage of time, the interests of justice do not call for the charges against them to be maintained. In support of these demands, they stress in their letter of 20/09/2002 the particularly heavy consequences they continue to suffer as result of the impugned criminal convictions imposed on them, including the fact that these convictions seriously affect their personal and business reputations, involve certain regulatory prohibitions limiting their ability to conduct some financial activities and have imposed the payment of substantial fines of up to several millions of pounds.

- The developments in the domestic proceedings can be summarised as follows: Following the judgments of the European Court, the applicants’ cases were referred to the Court of Appeal for a new examination by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, as the latter had found that there was a real possibility that the Court of Appeal might not uphold the convictions because of the decisions of the European Court.

In its decision of 21/12/2001, the Court of Appeal indicated among other things that “…if we concluded that we were bound to give effect to the Strasbourg Court’s decision that the trial was unfair by examining anew the safety of the convictions, we would not uphold the convictions on the basis that they are safe in any event.” (§47 of the Court of Appeal’s decision). However the Court of Appeal did not find itself so bound: courts were required to apply the law as existing at the time of the events, unless there was a subsequent contrary indication of the legislator. On this specific issue, the Human Rights Act made no changes since it had no retrospective effect. The Court of Appeal added that it did not share the opinion that, in the circumstances of the case, Article 46 of the Convention required such a re-examination; it added that, even if this were the case, the applicable legislation prevented it from giving effect to such international obligation. (idem, especially §§ 50-53). Neither did the Court of Appeal uphold any other ground of appeal. Accordingly, it concluded that the convictions were safe and dismissed the appeal (§86).

The applicants sought leave to appeal to the House of Lords. In its judgment of 14/11/2002 (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd021114/lyons-1.htm), the House of Lords unanimously upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal and in particular confirmed that courts were obliged to examine the safety of convictions according to the law as it stood at the time of the trial (see §§ 16,17,18, 29, 34, 59, 82, 96, 100 of the judgment of the House of Lords). In the present case, the law applicable at the relevant time admitted answers given under compulsory questioning as evidence. The House of Lords also confirmed that the law incorporating the Convention (the Human Rights Act, entered into force on 02/10/2000) has not been retrospective and has preserved parliamentary supremacy (§ 81). Lord Bingham added (§ 19) that it was neither necessary nor desirable for the House of Lords to consider what full reparation might be required in a case such as this in which the interests of justice would not appear to require a retrial in view of the lapse of time, the partial serving of prison sentences and the age and health of some of the appellants – it was rather for the European Court or for the Committee of Ministers to deal with these issues.

- The second application to Strasbourg: on 08/07/2003, the European Court rejected as inadmissible a second request (Application No. 15227/03) lodged by the applicants, complaining among other things of a new violation of Article 6 flowing from the decision of domestic courts not to exclude the impugned evidence from the review of safety of their convictions. The European Court found that the review proceedings did not give rise to any new violation of Article 6 since they formed part of an ongoing judicial process rooted in the original determination of the charges against the applicants. The Court also found that it should rather deal with the application under Article 46 of the Convention. The Court noted in this respect that a finding of a violation of the Convention imposes on the respondent state a legal obligation, not just to pay the sums awarded by way of just satisfaction, but also to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the general and/or, if appropriate, individual measures to be adopted in their domestic legal order to put an end to the violation found by the Court and, as far as possible to redress its effects. As far as the individual measures were concerned in the present case, the Court noted this is a matter of ongoing discussion

Sub-section 4.1

between the Committee of Ministers and the UK authorities. The Court has indicated that it was not called

upon to assume any role in this dialogue, by directing the state to adopt a specific measure such as to open a new trial or to quash a conviction, or by finding a violation of the Convention on account of its failure to take either of these courses of action. Nevertheless, the Court stressed the fact that these considerations were not intended to detract from the importance of ensuring that domestic procedures are in place which allow cases to be revisited in the light of findings of violation of Article 6, since such procedures represent an important aspect of the execution of the Court’s judgments and indicate a state’s commitment to the Convention.

- The position of the UK authorities was summarised at the 798th meeting (June 2002) by their Representative, who referred in particular to the following considerations: the authorities have done all that was required by the Court’s judgment (payment of just satisfaction and legislative reform to prevent recurrence of the violations found). Even if reopening of proceedings was a desirable measure in certain circumstances, the Convention did not require such a measure in all circumstances, and in particular not in respect of cases such as the applicants’. No question had indeed been raised before in these cases regarding any necessity of reopening the proceedings. Moreover, a requirement to reopen or to quash the applicants’ convictions could risk opening the floodgates to revision requests in respect of cases in which there had been, or might have been, a violation of a Convention right at trial many years ago, something that would risk undermining the “controlled introduction” of the Convention rights into domestic law achieved through the Human Rights Act.

At the 827th meeting (February 2003) the UK delegation reiterated that the United Kingdom had complied with the requirements of the judgments and proposed to close these cases. The applicants opposed such a decision, stressing the fact that the Court of Appeal had concluded that, in the absence of the evidence collected in breach of the Convention, their conviction could not be upheld as safe. They summarised their arguments in a memorandum sent to the Secretariat on 24/10/2003.

At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), the UK delegation announced that it would provide comments on the submissions of the applicants, underlining at the same time that it was not envisaged to give retrospective effect to the Human Rights Act. It was made clear that the need was not for a general retrospective effect of the legislation, but for a way to redress the effects of the violation found by the European Court in the specific case of the applicants.

SUB-SECTION 4.2 – INDIVIDUAL MEASURES AND/OR GENERAL PROBLEMS

- 1 case against Austria

H46-668 36812+ Sylvester, judgment of 24/04/03, final on 24/07/03

The case concerns the failure of the Austrian authorities to enforce a final court decision rendered in December 1995 under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, that ordered that the first applicant’s daughter (the second applicant, born in 1994), unlawfully taken away by her mother, should be returned to him in the United States. After an unsuccessful attempt to enforce that decision in May 1996, the Austrian Courts set aside the enforcement of the return order by court decision of August 1996 (final in October 1996) on the grounds that, due to the considerable lapse of time since the two year-old child had lost contact with her father, there would be a risk of grave psychological harm if she was separated from her mother, who had become her main person of reference. Subsequently, the second applicant’s mother was awarded sole custody of the second applicant.

The European Court noted that, in cases of this kind, the adequacy of a measure is to be judged by the swiftness of its implementation, as the passage of time can have irremediable consequences. A change in the relevant facts may exceptionally justify the non-enforcement of a final return order under the Hague Convention, but the change must not have been brought about by the state's failure to take all measures that could have reasonably been expected. The Court found that the Austrian authorities had failed to take, without delay, all measures that could have been reasonably expected to enforce the return order, and thereby breached the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, by allowing the passage of time to determine the outcome of the custody proceedings (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: The Austrian delegation indicated that the applicant enjoyed visitation rights after the moment when custody was awarded to the mother of the child, and still regularly visits his daughter on the basis of an out-of-court agreement. By letters sent to the Secretariat, the applicant complained about the conditions of this access, stressing that he was forced to accept them because the Austrian courts were not able to provide him with an acceptable possibility of access to his child, since they regularly favoured the mother’s interests, afforded him too little visitation time, allowed late appeals of the mother to prevent that already-established visits take place, etc. He also complained that he was never permitted to have unsupervised contacts with the child or take her to visit the United States. According to the Austrian delegation, no request is currently pending before the domestic authorities concerning the visitation rights of the applicant.

In the United States, an arrest warrant against the mother and a US custody order granting sole custody to the father are in force.

General measures: The Austrian delegation indicated that a new law was adopted in November 2003 (due to enter into force in January 2005), providing for the decrease of the number of courts competent to deal with requests of return based on the Hague Convention (at present all 180 district courts) to only 16 district courts. This concentration of competence will allow greater specialisation of the judges on this issue and will facilitate training efforts. The law also provides that decisions in non-contentious procedures relating to the Hague Convention are to be adopted speedily.

In the same time, the delegation indicated that interested persons have the possibility, based on Article 21 of the Hague Convention, to request visitation rights while the return proceedings are pending.

The Austrian delegation has confirmed the publication of the judgment of the European Court in the ÖIM-Newsletter 2003/2. Confirmation of the wide dissemination of the judgment to all competent authorities dealing with the application of the Hague Convention is still awaited.

Sub-section 4.2

- 3 cases against Cyprus

H46-669 30873 Egmez, judgment of 21/12/00

CM/Inf(2004)5

The case mainly concerns the inhuman treatment inflicted upon the applicant by state officials during his arrest before being admitted to hospital in Larnaca (violation of Article 3) and the absence of an effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13). On 01/12/1995, the Attorney General filed at the Nicosia District Court a nolle prosequi in the applicant’s case, in accordance with Article 113.2 of the Constitution. The applicant was released on the same day. On 04/12/1995, the Nicosia District Court discharged the applicant.

Individual measures: The applicant’s lawyer wrote to the Secretariat on 19/04/2001 raising several questions about the need to adopt individual measures in this case. In May 2001 the Secretariat forwarded a copy of the letter to the Cypriot authorities, who confirmed that they were examining measures that might need to be taken in this case and undertook to keep the Secretariat informed of developments.

On 26/09/2002, the Secretariat received a letter from the applicant’s lawyer requesting among other things precise information about the measures under examination by the Cypriot authorities. He also asked whether the Attorney General had instituted criminal proceedings against the officers involved and, if not, what reasons had been given. Finally, he requested that a copy of his letter be made available to all the Deputies.

At the 827th meeting (11-12/02/2003), the Cypriot authorities informed the Committee that the Attorney General intended to appoint independent criminal investigators to look into the question of criminal offences committed by members of the police (the statement was distributed at the meeting). At the 847th meeting (July 2003) the Cypriot authorities indicated that information in respect of this latter issue would be available for the 854th meeting (October 2003).

By letter of 14/10/2003, the Secretariat was informed that by decision of the Attorney General of 30/04/2003, a criminal investigator has been appointed in the Egmez and Denizci cases (information already transmitted by letter of 19/03/2003 and included in CM/Inf(2003)30). The investigation is at present well under way: all documentary evidence and written statements following interviews with the applicants themselves and numerous other persons and sources has been completed. The investigator has already received all the relevant files from the Attorney General’s office and from other governmental departments or bodies which conducted investigations related to these cases.

Certain questions remain outstanding in this respect, however. These were detailed by the Secretariat in a letter sent to the Cypriot authorities on 18/12/2003. In particular, information is awaited as to the current state of investigations, and further information is awaited with respect to the procedural safeguards surrounding the investigation.

General measures: As in the Denizci and others case, also examined under sub-section 4.2, the Cypriot authorities have informed the Committee of Ministers that the judgment of the European Court was disseminated to all institutions concerned (judiciary and police/security forces, Attorney General’s Office, Ombudsman, Cyprus Bar Association). The Ministries of Justice and the Interior have requested that appropriate instructions be prepared and distributed to all state officials in order to avoid any future cases of ill-treatment. Instructions prepared by the Attorney General have also been distributed to all authorities concerned. Finally, the judgment has received extensive media coverage in Cyprus. Information about its publication has been requested.

Furthermore, sections 242-243 of the Criminal Code and related parts of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been amended taking into account the findings of the European Court. However, further legislative measures are envisaged. The Cypriot authorities have sent the Secretariat details in Greek. An English summary was also sent to the Secretariat on 04/10/2002.

The Committee has asked whether, as far as the violation of Article 13 is concerned and in the light of §§71 and 99 of the Court’s judgment, the Cypriot authorities envisage adopting specific measures to guarantee that similar violations do not recur.

Sub-section 4.2

On 31/10/2002, the Cypriot Delegation met the Secretariat, which highlighted the issues in need of clarification and requested to have this, if possible, in time for the examination of the Egmez and Denizci cases at the 819th meeting.

On 07/02/2003, there was a further meeting between the Cypriot Delegation and the Secretariat. Written information was handed to the Secretariat. This information was subsequently presented to the Committee by the Cypriot Representative at the 827th meeting and a copy of the statement was distributed to all delegations.

Subsequently, on 26/02/2003, the Secretariat wrote to the Cypriot authorities, indicating those areas in which further information/clarifications are awaited.

At the 834th meeting (April 2003) the Cypriot authorities indicated that additional information in response to the Secretariat’s letter of 26/02/2003, would be transmitted to the Secretariat shortly. The Committee decided to postpone the examination of the case to its 847th meeting (July 2003).

On 20/05/2003, the Secretariat received this information.

All the information received to that point from the Cypriot authorities, and the questions raised by the applicants’ representatives and other delegations are included in the Memorandum prepared by the Secretariat (see CM/Inf(2004)5).

The Committee decided at its 847th meeting (July 2003) to postpone the examination of the general measures to its 863rd meeting (December 2003).

Further information was forwarded to the Secretariat on 13/10, 20/11 and 5/12/2003, concerning the training of police officers in human rights issues, the translation of the Court’s judgments into Greek with a view to their publication in full, the introduction of a Bill in Parliament regulating the exercise by persons in detention of the right to a lawyer and their access to medical assistance, as well as the investigation and punishment of police officers alleged to have committed offences, especially where inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is alleged. Following the receipt of this information and in response to a request by the Cypriot delegation at the 863rd meeting (December 2003), the Secretariat informed the delegation in its letter of 18/12/2003 that the following issues remained outstanding:

- formal publication of the judgments following their translation;

- entry into force of additional legislation making it a criminal offence for a member of the police unlawfully to deprive a person of his or her liberty;

- adoption of the draft legislation introducing improved access of detained persons to a lawyer and a doctor.

Furthermore, questions raised regarding the adequacy of the safeguards surrounding the investigations in this case are also relevant to the general measures aimed at preventing similar violations. Information is awaited with respect to the above points.

H46-670 25316 Denizci and others, judgment of 23/05/01, final on 23/08/01

CM/Inf(2004)5

The case concerns in particular the fact that the applicants (and in the case of the ninth applicant, her son) were subjected to ill-treatment considered inhuman by the European Court (violation of Article 3), that they have been victims of unlawful arrest and detention (violation of Article 5§1) and that they have been subjected to restrictions on their freedom of movement (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4).

Individual measures: The Cypriot authorities have stated that the applicants were released from detention. The Committee has asked whether the investigation proceedings, which started in 1995, are still open (§23 of the judgment of the European Court).

At the 827th meeting (11-12/02/2003), the Cypriot authorities informed the Committee that it is the intention of the Attorney General to appoint independent criminal investigators to carry out an investigation into the commission of criminal offences by members of the police (the statement was distributed at the meeting).At the 847th meeting (July 2003) the Cypriot authorities indicated that information in respect of this latter issue would be available for the 854th meeting (October 2003).

Sub-section 4.2

In view of the Court’s conclusions in this case and of the position taken by the applicants on this point, no further individual measures appear to be called for.

General measures: The Cypriot authorities have informed the Committee of Ministers that the judgment of the European Court was disseminated to all institutions concerned (the Judiciary and the police force/security forces, the Attorney General’s Office, the Ombudsman, the Cyprus Bar Association). The Ministries of Justice and the Interior have requested that appropriate instructions be prepared and distributed to all State officials in order to avoid any future cases of ill-treatment. Instructions prepared by the Attorney General have also been distributed to all authorities concerned. Finally, the judgment has received extensive media coverage in Cyprus. Exact references as to its publication and the dissemination have been requested. Furthermore, sections 242-243 of the Criminal Code and related parts of the code of criminal proceedings were already amended taking into account the findings of the European Court. However, further legislative measures are envisaged. The Cypriot authorities have transmitted to the Secretariat, in written form, details of the above-mentioned information in Greek. An English summary was also sent to the Secretariat on 04/10/2002.

On 31/10/2002, a meeting took place between the Cypriot Delegation and the Secretariat. At the meeting, the Secretariat identified the issues for which clarifications are needed, and requested to have this, if possible, in time for the examination of the Egmez and Denizci cases at the 819th meeting.

Subsequently, on 26/02/2003, the Secretariat wrote to the Cypriot authorities, indicating those areas in which further information/clarifications are awaited.

On 20/05/2003, the Secretariat received this information.

All the information received so far from the Cypriot authorities, and the questions raised by the applicants’ representatives and other delegations are included in the Memorandum prepared by the Secretariat (see CM/Inf(2004)5).

The Committee decided at its 847th meeting (July 2003) to postpone the examination of the general measures to its 863rd meeting (December 2003).

Further information was forwarded to the Secretariat on 13/10, 20/11 and 5/12/2003, concerning the training of police officers in human rights issues, the translation of the Court’s judgments into Greek with a view to their publication in full, the introduction of a Bill in Parliament regulating the exercise by persons in detention of the right to a lawyer and their access to medical assistance, as well as the investigation and punishment of police officers alleged to have committed offences, especially where inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is alleged. Following the receipt of this information and in response to a request by the Cypriot Delegation at the 863rd meeting (December 2003), the Secretariat informed the Delegation in its letter of 18/12/2003 that the following issues remained outstanding:

- formal publication of the judgments following their translation;

- entry into force of additional legislation making it a criminal offence for a member of the police unlawfully to deprive a person of his or her liberty;

- adoption of the draft legislation introducing improved access of detained persons to a lawyer and a doctor.

In addition, confirmation was sought that the various dissemination and training measures referred to in the submissions of the Cypriot authorities had addressed the violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 in the present case. Information is awaited with respect to these points.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-671 62242 Gregoriou, judgment of 25/03/03, final on 09/07/03

The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings before the Nicosia District Court and the Supreme Court (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings began on 12/08/1985 and ended on 29/11/1999 (more than 14 years and 3 months).

The general problem of the length of civil proceedings was dealt with in the Mavronichis case (Resolution DH(99)465). The specific issue in this case is that significant delays were due to re-hearings of the case before different benches of the courts because certain of the participating judges retired or resigned or were appointed to another court (see §§ 26-27, 33-34 and 43 of the judgment of the European Court).

General measures: Information is awaited as to whether measures are necessary in order to prevent delays due to changes to the composition of the courts.

- 4 cases against the Czech Republic

H46-93 41486 Bořánková, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 21/05/03

This case concerns the excessive length of civil proceedings concerning the division of common assets which had belonged to the applicant and her ex-husband (violation of Article 6§1). The proceedings which began in 1985 and ended in 2000, lasted more than 14 years (for four degrees of jurisdiction) of which seven years and ten months were after the European Convention’s entry into force with respect to the Czech Republic.

General measures: At the 847th meeting (July 2003), the government was asked to provide information about measures envisaged to ensure the reasonable length of civil proceedings. This information, as well as written confirmation of the publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court, are awaited.

H46-673 47273 Běleš and others, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

The case concerns the refusal by domestic courts in December 1997 and April 1998 to determine the merits of the applicant association’s action challenging its exclusion from the “J.E. Purkyne Czech Medical Society”. The courts’ refusal had been motivated by their interpretation of the procedural rules according to which the decision of exclusion should have been challenged under the provisions governing the appeal against administrative acts, despite the fact that the Medical Society was a private association (violation of Article 6§1).

The case also concerns the refusal of the Constitutional Court to examine the appeal of the applicant association since it failed to lodge an appeal on points of law. The European Court held that the applicant association was deprived of an effective protection of its rights due to an unpredictable interpretation of the applicable procedural rules governing the admissibility of constitutional appeals, and especially the requirement of exhaustion of the available remedies (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: At the 834th meeting (April 2003), there was a request for information as to whether the applicant association could once again bring its case before domestic courts. The delegation has informed the Secretariat that the applicant has not indicated any such intention with regard to individual measures. Nevertheless, it would be helpful to know whether such a request, if lodged, would be rejected on procedural grounds (such as expiry of time-limits, res judicata, etc).

General measures: Concerning the first violation of Article 6§1, the delegation has indicated that the interpretation given by the domestic courts to the relevant procedurals rules was contrary to domestic law and to the practice of the Supreme and Constitutional Courts. Moreover, the Act on the Freedom of Associations was modified in 2002 to clarify the matter. More information on the content of this reform would be useful.

Sub-section 4.2

Concerning the appeal before the Constitutional Court, the Czech Authorities also specified that a decision of the Constitutional Court, published under No. 32/2003 in the Czech Law Collection, clarified the issue of the exhaustion of available remedies by indicating that an appeal on points of law must be lodged with the Court of Cassation before any constitutional appeal. Moreover, the government has also approved a draft law seeking to clarify this matter. A copy of the relevant provisions of this draft, together with more information on the progress of this reform, is awaited.

The publication of the judgment of the European Court on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice has been confirmed.

H46-674 36548 Pincová and Pinc, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

H46-672 46129 Zvolský and Zvolská, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

The cases concern the application of the Czech Law of 1991 on land ownership which resulted in the restitution to the former owners, in 1994 and 1995, of property which the applicants had acquired in 1967 in good faith and in return for a consideration. The European Court found, inter alia, that Article 8 of this Law ruled out, in individual cases, the examination of particular circumstances in which assets had been transferred to applicants during the Communist period. This lack of an individual approach, together with the absence of adequate and reasonable compensation for the deprivation of property, affected the just balance that must be struck between the protection of individual property and the requirements of general interest (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

The Zvolský and Zvolská case concerns in addition a violation of the right of access to the Constitutional Court, which rejected the applicants’ complaint as being out of time, penalising them for appealing on a point of law before lodging their constitutional complaint (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: The pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants was compensated by the European Court under Article 41 of the Convention.

General measures: Concerning the application of the 1991 Law on land ownership, the Czech authorities have indicated that this law sets out to regulate individual situations caused by transfers of property which took place under the Communist regime in order to redress the economic wrongs caused to the former owners. According to the Czech Delegation, the violations of the Convention found by the Court represented isolated cases, which do not require general measures. Nonetheless, more information is needed concerning how many requests for restitution based on the 1991Llaw are still pending before the national authorities.

Concerning the violation of the right of access to the Constitutional Court, the case of Zvolský and Zvolská presents similarities to that of Bĕlĕs and others against the Czech Republic (judgment of 12/11/2002) (sub‑section 4.2).

The judgments of the European Court have been translated and published on the internet site of the Ministry of Justice.

- 2 cases against France

H46-134 67263 Mouisel, judgment of 14/11/02, final on 21/05/03[57]

The case concerns inhuman and degrading treatment experienced by the applicant in that he was kept in prison until his provisional release on 22/03/2001, despite the decline in his state of health, which was considered more and more alarming and less and less compatible with his imprisonment. It also raises questions about his conditions of detention, transfer to hospital and medical treatment (violation of article 3).

General measures: In the judgment, the European Court took note of the recent evolution of French legislation in this field, which has increased the powers of the judge responsible for the execution of sentences in respect of seriously ill prisoners. It considered that these judicial procedures “may provide sufficient guarantees to ensure the protection of prisoners' health and well-being, which States must reconcile with the legitimate requirements of a custodial sentence”. Under Article 729 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) as amended by the Law of 15/06/2000, the need to undergo treatment may be taken into

Sub-section 4.2

account in a decision to grant parole. Furthermore, under the Law of 04/03/2002 on patients' rights (new Article 720-1-1 of the CCP), prisoners' sentences may be suspended if they are suffering from a life-threatening illness or if their condition is incompatible in the long term with their continued detention. The judge may direct that the sentence be suspended indefinitely: he must arrange for two expert assessments in order to determine whether a sentence should be suspended or whether a suspension should be lifted.

As far as the conditions of detention and transfer to hospital are concerned, the Court particularly recalled the conclusions drawn by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) following its visit to France in May 2000 (patients systematically forcibly handcuffed regardless of their state of health or age, examined and treated in the presence of law-enforcement officials, and physically attached to their hospital beds). In this connection, the French authorities have pointed out that they have drawn up a draft circular on the subject, for the drafting of which the CPT made some recommendations.

Information is expected on the implementation of the new legislative measures since their entry into force as well as on the measures envisaged concerning the conditions of transfer of sick prisoners and their medical treatment. On this last point, it could be useful to know how the draft circular announced before the CPT has been followed up.

H46-143 35683 Vaudelle, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 06/09/01[58]

The case concerns the unfairness of criminal proceedings following which the applicant who, in March 1995, had been placed under temporary civil guardianship (curatelle), was condemned in absentia in October 1995: the applicant had not responded to the summons which had been duly delivered to him and his guardian (curateur) had not been informed of the prosecution of the applicant (violation of Article 6).

The Court found that there was no reason why an individual who is acknowledged to be incapable of defending his civil interests and is entitled to assistance for that purpose should not also to be given assistance to defend himself against a criminal charge.

General measures: At the 775th meeting (December 2001) information was requested concerning the measures that France envisages to avoid new, similar violations. The judgment has been published in several law journals (including Le Dalloz No. 27-2002; La Semaine Juridique, édition générale, No.19-2001).

- 1 case against Greece

H46-678 55828 Satka and others, judgment of 27/03/03, final on 27/06/03

The case concerns the fact that repeated interventions by the state rendered ineffective two judicial decisions revoking the expropriation of the applicants’ land in 1953 and 2000, because of the state’s refusal to pay the applicants the compensation fixed by the courts (violation of Article 6§1).

The aspect of the case concerning the state’s refusal to pay the compensation awarded presents similarities in particular to the cases of Hornsby (judgment of 19/03/1997) and Iatridis (judgment of 25/03/1999) which appear in sub-section 6.2 following the constitutional and legislative measures already adopted in order to reinforce the administration’s obligation to comply with judicial decisions (Article 95 §§ 4-5 of the revised Constitution, Act 3068/12/11/2002 establishing specific judicial monitoring of the administration and allowing seizure against the state’s private property).

The case also concerns the fact that the applicants have not been able to use their land since 1991: the adoption of successive decrees amending the regional development plan which classified the land concerned as being for public use, as well as the conduct of the local authorities aimed at preventing the applicants from using their land, showed that the authorities’ aim was to appropriate the properties without bringing expropriation proceedings within a reasonable length of time or paying compensation to the applicants (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.1).

Sub-section 4.2

Individual measures: Information is awaited about the measures envisaged in order to clarify the applicants’ situations.

General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been published on the official internet site of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr). Its wide dissemination to the competent authorities would be useful.

Information is awaited as to whether Act 3068/12/11/2002 could prevent the uncertainty for owners caused similar interventions by the state or whether additional measures would be necessary.

- 2 cases against Ireland

H46-679 36887 Quinn, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2003)149 [59]

H46-680 34720 Heaney and McGuinness, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01, Interim Resolution ResDH(2003)149 [60]

- 91 cases against Italy

3 cases against Italy concerning illegal deprivation of property

H46-681 31524 Belvedere Alberghiera S.R.L., judgment of 30/05/00, final on 30/08/00 and judgment of 30/10/03, final on 30/01/04 (just satisfaction)

The case concerns the deprivation of the applicant company’s property in 1987 as a result of the unlawful occupation of its land by the state authorities under an expedited procedure in order to build a road, which was later found by the competent court not to be “in the public interest”. The applicant lost title by effect of the case-law rule of “constructive expropriation” (occupazione acquisitiva). According to this rule, the public authorities acquire title to the land from the outset before formal expropriation if, after taking possession of the land and irrespective of whether such possession is eventually found lawful or not by the courts, public work has been already carried out on the land.

The European Court considered that this rule, as applied in Italy, was not compatible with the requirement of lawfulness and that it therefore constituted an arbitrary interference with the applicant company’s property rights (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: The Court found that the best reparation would consist, in addition to the payment of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, in the restitution of the land to the applicants by the state. Having taken note of the government’s negative position on this issue, the Court awarded the applicant company comprehensive reparation in its judgment of 30/10/2003 which was not final yet at the date of preparing this document.

General measures: The Italian authorities have been asked to inform the Committee of Ministers of the measures envisaged in order to solve the problems underlined by the Court, relating to the system of "constructive expropriation”. In particular, the Italian authorities have been invited to take into consideration the introduction of a compulsory restitution of property not expropriated in the public interest, the abolition of the practice of “constructive expropriation” and the strengthening of public officials’ responsibility in case of illegal occupation. As a part of these measures, the publication and wide dissemination of the judgments to Italian civil courts, and in particular to the Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation and the Council of State, have been requested. The judgment was published in 2000 in Rivista internazionale dei diritti dell’uomo, No. 3 and in other legal journals. As regards legislative measures, in June 2001, a new Expropriation Code (Testo Unico, D.P.R. No. 327 of 08/06/2001) was adopted and entered into force, with amendments, on 30/06/2003. This new law sets out more clearly and in a single text the procedure and deadlines for expropriation, with a view, among other things, to preventing recourse to the “constructive expropriation” rule. The law, however, still allows expedited occupation procedures (Art. 22bis) as well as the possibility for the administration irrevocably to acquire, in the public interest, unlawfully occupied property (Art. 43). Some clarification is expected on how the new provisions are applied.

Sub-section 4.2

*H46-686 24638 Carbonara and Ventura, judgment of 30/05/00 and judgment of 11/12/03

(article 41)

The case relates to the deprivation of property resulting from the unlawful occupation by the state authorities, in 1970, of the applicants' land under an expedited procedure in order to build a school. The applicants were expropriated by effect of the case-law rule of “constructive expropriation” (occupazione acquisitiva), according to which the public authorities acquire title to the land from the outset before formal expropriation if, after taking possession of the land and irrespective of whether or not such possession is eventually found lawful by the courts, public work has been already carried out on the land.

The European Court found that the retrospective application of this rule by the Court of cassation as well as of the case-law on the limitation period applicable in order to make a claim for damages was not compatible with the requirement of lawfulness and that it therefore constituted an arbitrary interference with the applicants’ property rights (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

General measures: The Italian authorities have been asked to inform the Committee of Ministers of the measures envisaged in order to solve the problems stressed by the Court, relating to the system of “constructive expropriation”. In addition to the points raised in this respect with regard to the case Belvedere Alberghiera (see above), the Italian authorities have been invited to introduce an automatic right to compensation in case of expropriation.

In June 2001, a new Expropriation Code (Testo Unico, D.P.R. No. 327 of 08/06/2001) was adopted and entered into force, with amendments, on 30/06/2003. This new law sets more clearly and in a single text the procedure and deadlines for expropriation, including as regards the compensation in case of expropriation. Some clarification is expected on these provisions, in particular as regards compensation awarded in cases of unlawful occupation.

H32-685 19734 F.S. I, Interim Resolution DH(98)209

This case relates to the deprivation of property resulting from the unlawful occupation of the applicant’s land under an expedited procedure and without compensation for the damage sustained. The property was expropriated in 1998 by the municipal authorities in order to build a waste recycling station and dump. Another part of the applicant’s land was expropriated in 1994, in order to build a road giving access to the dump. The European Commission of Human Rights recalled in its report that compensation for the loss sustained by the applicant must be paid within a reasonable time and can only constitute adequate reparation where it also takes into account the damage arising from the length of the deprivation. In the present case, once the administrative courts found, in 1995, that the expropriation had been unlawful, the applicant had to engage new proceedings before the civil courts in order to obtain a compensation for the damage sustained (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

General measures: Since 1998, emphasis has been placed on the need to accelerate compensation procedures in cases of unlawful expropriation. The new Expropriation Code (Testo Unico, D.P.R. No. 327 of 08/06/2001), which entered into force on 30/06/2003, provides that expropriation should normally be preceded by the determination and payment of the compensation. Clarification is expected on the exceptions to this rule, notably in case of expedited occupation procedure and of unlawful expropriation as well as on the cases still requiring procedures before the administrative and the civil courts. Statistical data on the application of the new provisions in this respect would be useful.

Sub-section 4.2

3 cases concerning different aspects related notably to detention issues

H46-682 26772 Labita, judgment of 06/04/00

*H46-480 41852 Vaccaro, judgment of 16/11/00, final on 16/02/01

H46-684 31143 Indelicato Rosario, judgment of 18/10/01, final on 18/01/02

The Labita case concerns various aspects of the detention on remand of the applicant – suspected of being a member of a mafia-type organisation – and to the conditions of his release, namely:

- the absence of a thorough and effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment during his detention in the Pianosa prison between 20/07/1992 and 29/01/1993 (violation of Article 3);

- the lack of reasonable grounds justifying the continued detention of the applicant pending trial, the length of such detention (2 years and 7 months, between 1992 and 1994) having therefore been found excessive by the Court (violation of Article 5§3);

- the unlawfulness of the detention for 12 hours after the applicant’s acquittal (in November 1993), owing to the absence of the competent officer (violation of Article 5§1 – as regards this aspect, see the Resolution ResDH(2003)151 adopted in the Santandrea case, detailing the measures taken to prevent new, similar violations);

- the unlawful monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence during his detention, this measure having been sometimes applied in violation of internal law, which in any case does not comply with the criteria required by the Convention (violation of Article 8 – as regards this aspect and the measures under way in order to prevent new similar violations, see the C. Diana case, which was examined at the 863rd Deputies’ meeting and will be examined again at the latest in June 2004);

- the lack of sufficient grounds justifying the applicant’s placement under special police supervision after his acquittal (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 4) ;

- the unjustified disenfranchisement of the applicant after his acquittal (violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1).

The cases Indelicato and Vaccaro concern specific aspects of the applicants’ detention, similar to certain aspects of the Labita case, namely:

- in the case Indelicato, the lack of a thorough and effective investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatments during his detention in the Pianosa prison in 1992 (violation of Article 3);

- in the case Vaccaro, the excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand (4 years and 8 months, between 1993 and 1999) on account of the lack of reasonable grounds justifying its continuation and of the failure of the authorities to act with due expedition during the preliminary investigations and the trial (violation of Article 5§3).

General measures: The issue of general measures needed to prevent new violations similar to those found in these cases was addressed in detail in a letter by the Director of human rights of 24/08/2000.

As regards the measures envisaged to raise the awareness of judges and prosecutors of the criteria followed by the Court, in particular as regards length of detention on remand and the evaluation of the necessity of preventive measures after acquittal, the Italian delegation informed the Deputies that the Labita judgment had been transmitted to the Supreme Judicial Council and published in Italian in several legal journals, including Documenti giustizia, 2000, No.1/2. The Indelicato judgment was transmitted to the Public Prosecutor of Livorno and to the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of Cassation. The confirmation of the publication of the Vaccaro judgment is awaited. Information is expected about specific measures undertaken to draw the attention of District Criminal Courts and Public Prosecutors to the different points raised by the European Court in these judgments as well as about any recent example of case-law from the Constitutional Court and Court of Cassation demonstrating that the Convention and its case-law have a direct effect in Italy and, accordingly, that the Italian courts will not fail to interpret domestic law in accordance with the criteria emerging from these judgments.

Sub-section 4.2

The Vaccaro case has been brought to the attention of the Ministry of Justice with a view to identifying possible legislative or administrative measures to prevent undue prolongation of detention on remand. Information is expected on the outcome of these reflections.

Administrative measures have been taken, since 1998, to improve the effectiveness of procedures relating to the follow-up of complaints of ill-treatment in prison, in particular through a modification of the register of medical comments and the issuing of circulars and guidelines. Documents CPT/Inf(2003)16 and 17 issued in January 2003 by the Committee for the prevention of torture (CPT) contain detailed information on the measures taken to address the shortcomings found.

By letter of 26/07/2002, the Italian authorities indicated however that the proceedings specifically concerning the Pianosa prison authorities, at issue in the Labita and Indelicato cases, were discontinued in 2001 owing to prescription of the alleged ill-treatment offences. Pianosa prison was closed in 1998. A more general inquiry aimed at assessing the results of proceedings directed against prison authorities charged with ill-treatment found that, out of the 52 and 138 such proceedings started respectively in 1999 and 2000, 145 were still pending in January 2003, 42 had been discontinued and 3 had ended in acquittal. More recent data were requested.

- Cases concerning the failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants

H46-687 22774 Immobiliare Saffi, judgment of 28/07/99

H32-688 20177 Aldini, Interim Resolution DH(97)413 du 17/09/97

H46-689 22534 A.O., judgment of 30/05/00, final on 30/08/00

H46-220 38011 Aponte, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03[61]

H46-690 35550 Auditore, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-34 66920 Battistoni, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003[62]

H46-221 34999 C. Spa, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03[63]

H46-691 35428 C.T. II, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-692 28724 Capitanio, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02

H46-693 45006 Capurso, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

H46-183 48842 Carbone Anna, judgment of 22/05/03, final on 22/08/03

H46-184 35777 Carloni and Bruni, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-694 34819 Cau, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-695 34412 Ciccariello Franca, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-222 30879 Ciliberti Raffaele, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[64]

*H46-65 45356 Conti Lorenza, judgment of 10/07/2003, final on 03/12/2003[65]

H46-185 36268 Clucher II, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 24/09/03

H46-696 32589 D.V. II, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-186 33113 D’Ottavi, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03

H46-697 37117 De Benedittis, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-36 59634 De Gennaro, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003[66]

H46-187 41427 Del Beato, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03[67]

H46-188 36254 Del Sole, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03

H46-223 34658 E.P. IV, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03[68]

Sub-section 4.2

H46-698 30883 Esposito Paola, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-189 48145 Fabi, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-699 39735 Fegatelli, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

H46-37 63408 Ferroni Rossi, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003[69]

H46-38 60464 Fezia and others, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003[70]

H46-700 33909 Fiorani, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-701 34454 Fleres, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-702 32577 Folli Carè, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-224 33376 Folliero, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[71]

H46-225 31740 G. and M., judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03[72]

H46-703 43580 G.G. VI, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 09/07/03

H46-704 22671 G.L. IV, judgment of 03/08/00, final on 03/11/00

H46-39 59454 Gatti and others, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003[73]

H46-705 32662 Geni Srl, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-706 28272 Ghidotti, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

H46-226 31663 Giagnoni and Finotello, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[74]

H46-707 32006 Gnecchi and Barigazzi, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-708 32374 Guidi I. and F., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-709 32766 Immobiliare Sole Srl, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-40 64151 Kraszewski, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003[75]

H46-710 32392 L. and P. I, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-711 33696 L. and P. II, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-227 32542 L.B. III, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[76]

H46-712 41610 L.M. VII, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

H46-41 62020 La Paglia, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003[77]

H46-190 36149 Losanno and Vanacore, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03[78]

H46-713 21463 Lunari, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 11/04/01

H46-714 32391 M.C. XI, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-715 31923 M.P., judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-716 42343 Malescia, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03

H46-228 31548 Maltoni, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[79]

H46-42 60388 Marigliano, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003[80]

H46-717 35088 Marini E., C., A.M., R. and S., judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-718 31129 Merico, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-43 58408 Miscioscia, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003[81]

H46-191 58191 Mottola, judgment of 22/05/03, final on 22/08/03

H46-719 35024 Nigiotti and Mori, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-720 24650 P.M. I, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 5/09/01

H46-192 34998 P.M. II, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03[82]

H46-721 15919 Palumbo, judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

Sub-section 4.2

H46-722 37008 Pannocchia, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-229 46161 Pepe Giuseppa, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03[83]

H46-193 59539 Pulcini, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-194 32385 Ricci Onorato, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03

H46-195 36249 Rosa Massimo, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-196 55725 Rosati, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03

H46-723 30530 Rossi Luciano, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-724 32644 Sanella, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-197 31012 Savio, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03[84]

H46-725 33227 Scurci Chimenti, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-726 31223 T.C.U., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-727 23424 Tanganelli, judgment of 11/01/01, final on 11/04/01

H46-44 62000 Tempesti Chiesi and Chiesi, judgment of 31/07/2003, final on 31/10/2003[85]

H46-198 35637 Tolomei, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03[86]

H46-728 33252 Tona, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-230 33204 Tosi, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03[87]

H46-199 33692 Traino, judgment of 17/07/03, final on 17/10/03

H46-729 30972 V.T., judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03

H46-200 48730 Voglino, judgment of 22/05/03, final on 22/08/03

H46-231 36377 Zannetti, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03[88]

H46-730 35006 Zazzeri, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

These cases mainly concern the sustained impossibility for the applicants to obtain the assistance of the police in order to enforce judicial decisions ordering their tenants’ eviction, principally on account of the implementation of legislation providing for the suspension or staggering of evictions. The European Court concluded that a fair balance had not been struck between the protection of the applicants’ right to property and the requirements of the general interest (violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). In most of these cases, the Court also concluded that, as a result of the legislation at issue, rendering eviction orders nugatory, the applicants had been deprived of their right to have their disputes decided by a court, contrary to the principle of the rule of law (violation of Article 6§1).

104 further cases similar to these, having led to the conclusion of friendly settlements (including those in Section 2), have been examined to date by the Committee of Ministers.

Individual measures: Information is expected on measures envisaged in order to allow the applicants in the cases of Carbone Anna (48842), C.T. II (35428), Esposito Paola (30883), M.P. (31923) and Marini (35088), to recover possession of their apartments and thus put to an end the violations found. In the other cases, the applicants recovered their apartments between 1992 and 2002, i.e. between 4 and 17 years after the eviction decisions had been issued.

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: A law was adopted in December 1998 (Law No. 431/98 “Regulations concerning the renting and the repossession of housing”), which sets - inter alia - the conditions, modalities and deadlines for the enforcement of eviction decisions. However, this law has not solved the problems at the origin of these cases and it is still difficult in Italy to have eviction decisions enforced, notably due to the lack of police forces available for this task, to the recurrent adoption of new legislation suspending evictions (for example, they are currently suspended until 30/06/2004 as regards certain categories of tenants) and to the absence of responsibility both on the part of tenants and of the state in case enforceable eviction orders are not respected. According to statistical data forwarded by the Italian authorities on 04/07/2003, concerning the period 1983-2002, the number of eviction orders implemented has remained stable around 18 000 per year. On the other hand, following the adoption of the Law of 1998, the number of requests of implementation of eviction orders decreased by 23,64% between 1998 and 1999, from 126 011 to 96 219 and the number of eviction procedures also decreased from 50 226 in 1997 to 37 610 in 2002. By letter of 19/06/2001, the Italian authorities informed the Committee that the Ministry for Home Affairs was approaching the other competent departments in order to identify further and more effective measures, both on the administrative and legislative level, notably with a view to simplifying proceedings. Information is expected on the outcome of the ongoing reflections. In addition, the Immobiliare Saffi judgment has been published in the legal journal Rivista internazionale dei diritti dell’uomo, No. 1/2000, P. 252-265.

At the time of issuing these notes, a draft interim resolution was being prepared for discussion at the present meeting. This draft will be distributed separately as soon as it is ready.

- 1 case against Latvia

H46-587 58442 Lavents, judgment of 28/11/02, final on 28/02/03[89]

The case concerns a number of violations concerning, first the pre-trial detention of the applicant, a former Chairman of the Board of the largest Latvian bank (Banka Baltija) which had gone bankrupt, and secondly the criminal proceedings brought against him before the Latvian courts.

The European Court found the following shortcomings:

- the composition of the Riga Regional Court of had been contrary to domestic law (violation of Article 6§1);

- the lack of impartiality of this court due to public statements made by its President suggesting the applicant's guilt (violation of Article 6§1);

- a violation of the presumption of innocence due these statements (violation of Article 6§2);

- the lack of effective judicial supervision of the applicant's detention on remand, given the unlawfulness of the composition of the aforementioned court and the fact that it was not impartial (violation of Article 5§4);

- the excessive length of this detention on remand which lasted roughly four and half years (violation of Article 5§3);

- the excessive length of the criminal proceedings which lasted more than five and half years and which are still pending at appeal (violation of Article 6§1);

- the continuing monitoring of the correspondence between the applicant and his family and his lawyers on the basis of Article 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which lacks the precision required by the Convention (violation of Article 8);

- the total refusal of family visits during part of his detention, a measure deemed unnecessary in a democratic society (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: Shortly before the 834th meeting (April 2003), the Latvian delegation informed the Committee that on 27/01/2003 the applicant has been released pending trial and placed under police supervision.

As regards the violations of Article 6, on 13/02/2003 the Senate of the Latvian Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Riga Court of first instance of 19/12/2001 and referred the case back to that court for re-examination with a new bench of judges.

Sub-section 4.2

As to the violations of Article 8, as of 20/04/2000 the prohibition of family visits imposed on the applicant was lifted. On 27/03/2003 a judge of the Riga Court of first instance ordered an end to the monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence, which had been imposed on him in 1997.

As to the acceleration of the excessively long criminal proceedings pending at national level, further information is awaited.

General measures: As regards the violation of Article 5§3 (excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand), information concerning the new draft of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the draft law on detention on remand is awaited.

As to the violation of Article 8 due to the monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence, at the 834th meeting (April 2003), the Latvian Delegation announced that legislative amendment of the impugned provisions (Article 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) is envisaged. Further information concerning this subject is awaited.

Concerning the violation of Article 8 due to the refusal of family visits during a part of the applicant’s detention, the Latvian Delegation indicated that legislative measures in this field are envisaged. In addition, by a decision of 19/12/2001, the Latvian Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional any form of interference with the subjective rights of an individual solely on the basis of a ministerial order. Clarification was sought concerning the effects of this decision.

The judgment of the European Court was translated into Latvian and published in the Official Gazette on 12/02/2003. Information concerning the dissemination of the Court’s judgment, as well as concerning the training of the Latvian judges on the Convention and the Court’s case-law is expected.

- 1 case against Luxembourg

H46-731 51772 Roemen and other, judgment of 25/02/03, final on 25/05/03

This case concerns searches conducted at the home and the workplace of the first applicant, a journalist, and at the chambers of the second applicant, his lawyer, following the publication in the daily newspaper Lëtzëbuerger Journal of an article by the first applicant on tax frauds of which a minister was allegedly guilty. The latter had brought a civil action for damages against the first applicant as well as a criminal complaint. In the context of this complaint, the State Prosecutor had opened a preliminary investigation in order to discover who was responsible for breaching professional secrecy within the relevant public services, as well as any possible subsequent illegality committed by the first applicant in the execution of his duties (receiving information resulting from a violation of professional secrecy). The searches were carried out in implementation of this preliminary investigation. The European Court found that the first applicant’s right to freedom of expression had been violated because these searches, even though they had no result, were intended to discover his journalistic sources and were not proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued, i.e. the prevention and the repression of infractions (violation of Article 10). Furthermore, by a partially similar reasoning but also in the light of the wide wording of the search warrant, the Court judged that the searches carried out in the second applicant’s chambers, as well as the seizure of a document relating to the first applicant, violated her right to respect for her home (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: These measures are adopted. The document seized during the searches in the second applicant’s chambers has been returned, in execution of the European Court’s judgment.

General measures:

1. Concerning the draft law on freedom of expression in the media, and particularly the section covering the protection of journalistic sources: information was requested about whether the area of application of these provisions was wide enough to cover situations similar to that of the first applicant, who had been indicted. Indeed, according to the wording of the relevant provisions, only journalists who are heard as witnesses enjoy the protection of their sources: first, they are entitled to refuse to divulge them; secondly, the authorities must refrain from taking measures aiming at or having the effect of circumventing this right, including searches and seizures. The delegation of Luxembourg (on 27/11/2003) made it clear that in principle the protection of journalistic sources “only applies to journalists who are not presumed to have, or convicted of having,

Sub-section 4.2

committed an offence”. However, it is in particular extended to journalists who are charged in order to remove this protection. The commentary on the draft law explains that this article aims at bringing Luxembourg law into full compliance with, in particular, the Court’s case law and Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation R(2000)7, of which it recalls the principles. It adds that the reasoning accepted on this draft law “presupposes, of course, that the national authorities are made aware and familiarised with the mechanism set by the ECHR”. Some clarifications are still needed concerning the compatibility of the relevant provisions of the draft law with the Court’s case-law. The Secretariat and the delegation of Luxembourg are maintaining bilateral contacts on this issue.

2. Draw the investigating judges’ attention on the fact that orders concerning searches should be drawn up in a more precise way, in conformity with the Court’s case-law. This measure has been adopted. The “investigating Magistrate-Director” (Juge d’instruction-Directeur) has confirmed that all investigating magistrates have taken note of this recommendation.

3. Dissemination of the judgment to the courts and investigating magistrates. This measure has been adopted. The Court’s letter about this judgment’s availability on the HUDOC Internet site was sent on 04/06/2003 by the Ministry of Justice to the State public prosecutor (Procureur Général d’Etat), for information and dissemination. The courts and investigating magistrates have been informed of the Court’s judgment in this case. Finally, the “law” part of the judgment of the European Court was published in CODEX (law and politics monthly review of Luxembourg), in February 2003 (Internet site: www.codex-online.com).

- 1 case against Moldova

H46-732 45701 Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and others, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 27/03/02

The case concerns the failure of the Government to recognise the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. The Court concluded that this non-recognition constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of religion (notably because the absence of recognition deprived it of an effective access to a court to claim property entitlements). This interference, although pursuing a legitimate aim, was not “necessary in a democratic society” and thus not justified under the Convention (violation of Article 9). The Court also concluded that the applicants did not enjoy an effective remedy in respect of their claims at domestic level (violation of Article 13).

Individual measures: Following the Court's judgment, the Moldovan authorities recognised and registered the applicant Church on 30/07/2002 in accordance with the Moldovan Law on Religious Denominations, as amended on 12/07/2002. The Church has thus acquired legal personality opening the possibility for it to claim property entitlements among other things.

According to the information provided by the Moldovan authorities in October 2003, a number of Church’s sub-divisions have been registered (30 parishes and 4 monasteries). It also disposed at the time of more than 120 rectories with almost 160 priests.

In September 2003 the Committee of Ministers was made aware of pending domestic court proceedings – initiated by the applicant Church in February 2002 – challenging a decision by the Moldovan authorities of 26/09/2001 approving an amendment to the statute of the Moldovan Metropolitan Church by which the latter declared itself as the legal successor to the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia (which ceased its activity in 1944). It was claimed that such approval allegedly infringed the property rights of the applicant Church.

At the 854th meeting (October 2003), the Committee asked the Moldovan authorities to be kept informed about these domestic proceedings. Subsequently, the Committee was informed that, on 02/02/2004, the Supreme Court had allowed the applicant Church’s complaint and abolished the government’s decision of 26/09/2001. A copy of a final decision on the merits is awaited.

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: The Moldovan authorities informed the Committee of Ministers that the original version of the judgment of the European Court and its official translation into Moldovan were published on 09/07/2002 in the Official Journal of Moldova.

The Moldovan authorities also indicated that the Moldovan legislation on religious denominations was amended by Law n°1220-XV which entered into force on 12/07/2002. Article 325 of the Code of Civil Procedure has also been amended so as to allow the reopening of domestic civil proceedings following violations of the Convention found by the European Court. These amendments were found to be insufficient to prevent new, similar violations, inasmuch as they did not reflect the requirement of proportionality inherent in the Convention and as the right of a religious community to take judicial proceedings to challenge a registration decision was not provided with sufficient clarity.

A new draft law was submitted in March 2003 to the Committee, an analysis of which showed that it still did not solve all outstanding problems. This analysis was shared by the independent experts mandated by the Council of Europe to conduct a broader legal expertise on the draft at the request of the Moldovan authorities. This expertise was transmitted to the Moldovan authorities on 17/04/2003.

Following the examination of the case at the 841st meeting (June 2003), the Chairman invited the Moldovan authorities to intensify their efforts, in consultation with the Secretariat, to revise the draft law on religious denominations so as to ensure its compatibility with the Convention and thus solve the remaining issues raised by this case.

On 14 and 15/07/2003, a working meeting was held at the Moldovan Ministry of Justice with the participation of the Secretariat, experts as well as representatives of different religious denominations. The problems of the draft law were examined in detail and concrete solutions were proposed. In conclusion, the authorities were invited to present to the Committee of Ministers for the 854th meeting (October 2003) a revised draft resolving all the outstanding problems.

A second version of the draft law was submitted by the Moldovan authorities shortly before the 854th meeting. While it contained a number of improvements, a number of outstanding issues remained. A third version of the draft law was accordingly submitted by the Moldovan authorities on 05/01/2003.

A second working meeting on the draft law was held in Chisinau on 26 and 27/01/2004 with the participation of the Secretariat and Council of Europe experts. Information on the further progress of the draft law is awaited.

Follow-up by the Parliamentary Assembly: On 16/09/2003 the Committee of Ministers was seised of Written Questions no. 432 by Mr Cubreacov and Mrs Patereu: “Right of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia to its own succession in title” (CM(2003)138).

At the 869th meeting (21/01/2004), the Deputies adopted the reply to Written

Questions no. 432 which is contained in the document

CM/AS(2004)Quest432-final.

- 1 case against the Netherlands

H46-588 34462 Wessels-Bergervoet, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02

and judgment of 12/11/02 (Article 41) – Friendly settlement

The case concerns a decision in 1989 to grant the applicant an old age pension for a married person under the General Old Age Pension Act (Algemene Ouderdomswet - AOW). Her pension was however reduced as her entitlement to pension up to 1985 was linked to her husband’s which had been reduced by 38% as he had not been fully insured under this Act, having worked and been insured abroad for 19 years. The same reduction of the applicant’s pension was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) in 1996, despite the fact that this kind of reduction did not apply to a man married to a woman who had worked abroad. The European Court concluded that the above difference in treatment was not based on any objective and reasonable justification (violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention).

Sub-section 4.2

Individual measures: In its judgment of 12/11/2002on Article 41, the European Court has taken formal note of the friendly settlement reached between the Dutch authorities and the applicant in order to settle definitively the individual consequences resulting of the violation. Thus the amount withheld from the applicant’s pension has been repaid. What is more, with effect from 01/07/2002, the applicant has been entitled to an AOW pension (without the 38% deduction).

General measures: As from 01/04/1985, married women became entitled in their own right to an AOW pension (their rights are no more linked to the husband’s). However, when the relevant legal rules were changed in this way, no measures were taken retroactively to remove the discriminatory effect of the former legal rules. The Dutch Delegation has stated, during the 819th DH meeting (December 2002), that in order to solve this problem, all the persons in a situation similar to the applicant’s would be compensated in the same way that the applicant. It has also stated (during the same meeting) that the judgment had been broadly published and disseminated (in particular to the public prosecutors). Written confirmation of these measures is awaited.

- 12 cases against Poland

H46-733 34049 Zwierzynski, judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01 and judgment of 02/07/02, final on 24/06/03[90]

The case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings lodged by the State Treasury and aiming at acquisition through adverse possession of title to some illegally expropriated property which had been returned to the applicant by judicial decision: when the European Court delivered its judgment, the case was still pending before the Lomza district Court and had already lasted, within the meaning of the Convention, 8 years and 1 month (violation of Article 6§1).

The case also concerns an infringement of the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions due to the fact that the state organs continued to occupy the building at issue after the applicant’s father had been recognised as the owner of the property, and lodged court proceedings, without any reason of “public interest”, which have resulted in the postponement of the effective restitution of the property to the applicant (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: According to the information provided by the Polish delegation by letter of 20/12/2001, the proceedings for acquisition through adverse possession of title of the building at issue, at the origin of the violation of Article 6§1, ended on 21/09/2001, when the Lomza district Court dismissed the Treasury’s action. The Treasury appealed against the decision, but only on the issue of the determination of court fees. Information concerning the outcome of these proceedings is expected.

Just satisfaction: The European Court decided, under Article 41 of the Convention, that the respondent state had to restore the property to the applicant within three months from the date at which the judgment became final. Failing such restitution, the state had to pay the applicant, within the same time-limit, a sum of money corresponding to the value of the building (60 500 euros). The time-limit expired on 06/02/2003.

At the 819th meeting (December 2003), the Polish delegation informed the Committee that the government had taken steps to return the building at issue to the applicant, who refused it however, preferring to be paid the pecuniary damage afforded by the Court. A notarised deed has been drawn up to this effect.

Moreover, the Polish Government twice requested the revision of the European Court’s judgments (on the merits and on Article 41), due to the fact that proceedings had been lodged before the national courts by third persons to contest the property right of the applicant’s father to the building at issue at the time of the expropriation. The Government’s requests for revision were rejected by the European Court on 22/01/2003 and on 24/06/2003.

Sub-section 4.2

At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), the Polish delegation indicated that a final judgment had been rendered by the domestic courts in November 2003, ruling that the property at issue did not constitute a part of the succession after the applicant’s parents. Underlining that the applicant cannot be considered as the owner of the property, the Delegation concluded that he is not entitled to the restitution of the property or to compensation and asked the Committee of Ministers to postpone the examination of the case until the outcome of the new revision procedure that the authorities envisaged to open. A new request for revision was submitted to the European Court on 19/01/2004.

General measures: Publication of the judgment of the European Court translated into Polish is under way. The judgment was communicated to the Ministry of Justice for dissemination to courts, and to the Ministry of Internal Affairs for dissemination, in particular to the police. At the 819th meeting (December 2003), the Polish delegation indicated that the text of the Court’s judgments had been distributed to judges and prosecutors. Written information is expected especially as regards the publication.

H46-735 31583 Klamecki No. 2, judgment of 03/04/03, final on 03/07/03[91]

H46-736 30210 Kudła, judgment of 26/10/00 - Grand Chamber

H46-737 37443 Lisiak, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

CM/Inf(2003)42

These cases concern the excessive length of criminal proceedings against the applicants, which started in 1991 (more than 9 years and 11 years and 1 month)[92] (violations of Article 6§1).

The Kudła case also concerns the excessive length (2 years, 4 months) of the applicant’s detention on remand on charges of fraud and forgery (violation of Article 5§3) and the lack of effective remedies to enforce, at national level, the applicant’s right to a hearing “within a reasonable time” (violation of Article 13).

General measures: As regards the violation of Article 5§3 due to the excessive length of the detention on remand, the case of Kudła presents similarities to those of Trzaska and others against Poland (see sub-section 4.2).

As regards the violation of Article 6§1, by letter of 02/07/2003 and in a memorandum of 05/12/2003, the Polish Delegation indicated a number of legislative measures aiming at accelerating criminal proceedings taken in the framework of the 1997 Code of Criminal Procedure, in particular the most recent amendments which came into effect on 01/07/2003. According to the most important provisions, courts may longer refer cases back to the preliminary proceedings in order to conduct further investigations, increased possibilities of closing criminal proceedings by way of settlement are provided and preparatory proceedings and those concerning several co-defendants are simplified. This information was supplemented with statistical data, which shows that the number of cases examined by domestic courts increased for the first half of 2003 compared with the same period in 2002. According to these statistics, during the first half of 2003 the average duration of proceedings before first- instance criminal courts was between 5.5 and 5.9 months. The Secretariat is examining these positive developments in the light of the information provided by the Polish authorities in the framework of the examination of the cases concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings (see in particular Podbielski, Styranowski, in sub-section 5.1).

As regards the violation of Article 13 - During the first examination of the Kudła case (732nd meeting, December 2000), the Committee noted the scope of this judgment: for the first time the Court had applied Article 13 of the Convention in order to affirm that contracting states must provide effective domestic remedies to resolve the problem of excessive length of proceedings. The Committee also took note of the

Sub-section 4.2

fact that the remedies required in this regard by Article 13 could be both compensatory and preventive (§159 of the judgment). It should be noted that a general consideration was given to this topic, notably within the CDDH and its expert sub-committees, in order to facilitate the search for suitable solutions in member states. The result of this discussion is expected. The Committee nonetheless considered that this general consideration must not be allowed to prejudice its supervision of measures to comply with the Kudła judgment in accordance with Article 46 of the Convention.

At the 854th meeting (October 2003), the Polish delegation submitted a memorandum concerning:

- a draft law of 20/08/2003 providing an effective remedy against the excessive length of judicial proceedings;

- a draft law of 08/04/2003 on amendments to the Civil Code concerning the civil liability of the State Treasury for actions or omissions of public authorities; and

- a decision of the Constitutional Court of 04/12/2001, which might open a way to making civil claims against state officials on the grounds of excessive length of judicial proceedings (see CM/Inf(2003)42).

During consultations with the Polish delegation in September and October 2003, the Secretariat stressed the importance and the positive development of these reforms and presented certain observations concerning the two drafts. They concern principally the non-application of the draft law on an effective remedy against the excessive length of judicial proceedings to the length of the preliminary investigation, the limitation of the compensation in cases of unjustified delay to 10 000 zlotys (about 2 200 euros) and the limited competence of the court the complaint was lodged with to “recommend” to the court examining the merits to take the appropriate measures to remedy the situation. Information regarding further progress of the draft law and other possible general measures adopted or envisaged is awaited.

H46-589 30218 Nowicka, judgment of 03/12/02, final on 03/03/03[93]

The case concerns detention on remand of the applicant, who refused to submit to psychiatric examinations ordered by a court in the framework of her prosecution for criminal libel, which began in 1994. The European Court considered that the applicant’s detention – on two occasions – was intended to ensure that she complied with her obligation under a judicial order, but that in view of the length of the detention (83 days in all) the public authorities had not respected the balance to be established between the importance of ensuring immediate compliance with this obligation and the right to freedom (violation of Article 5§1).

The case also relates to unjustified restrictions on family visits during the applicant’s detention (violation of Article 8).

General measures: At the 841st meeting (June 2003), the publication and dissemination of judgment of the European Court to criminal courts and to competent medical authorities were requested. In addition, information was also requested, firstly, on the measures envisaged or already taken by the Polish authorities in order to organise better the detention of persons who refuse to comply with judicial decisions ordering their psychological examination, and secondly, on the regulation of visiting rights of persons detained for such examination, as well as the practice of the competent courts in this regard.

- Cases of length of criminal proceedings

H46-738 25792 Trzaska, judgment of 11/07/00

H46-739 33492 Jabłoński, judgment of 21/12/00

H46-740 33079 Szeloch, judgment of 22/02/01, final on 22/05/01

H46-741 27504 Iłowiecki, judgment of 04/10/01, final on 04/01/02

H46-742 28358 Baranowski, judgment of 28/03/00

H46-743 34097 Kreps, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-744 34052 Olstowski, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

These cases, except the Baranowski case, concern the excessive length of the applicants’ detention on remand between 1991 and 1997, given that the grounds relied upon by the domestic courts in support of the detention could not be deemed, as required by the case-law of the European Court, “relevant and sufficient” and since “special diligence” was not displayed in the conduct of the proceedings (violations of Article 5§3).

Sub-section 4.2

The cases of Trzaska, Jabłoński, Iłowiecki and Baranowski also concern the domestic courts' failure to examine promptly the applicants’ requests for release. In the Trzaska case, the European Court also found that the proceedings to review the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention on remand were not adversarial (violations of Article 5§4).

All the cases, except the Baranowski case, also concern the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicants (violations of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: Acceleration of the proceedings has been requested in the Iłowiecki and Olstowski cases, which are still pending at national level. The Polish Delegation has indicated that the Ministry of Justice has asked the President of the competent court (the Gdansk Regional Court) to supervise progress in these proceedings.

General measures: As regards the violations of Article 5§§3 and 4: The grounds for placement and maintenance in detention on remand were modified with the entry into force on 01/09/98 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure. Detention on remand may be ordered if there is a strong probability that the accused has committed an offence and, cumulatively, if there is a risk of his or her absconding, obstructing the proceedings or, in certain cases, re-offending. According to Article 258§3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an accused may be detained on remand if he or she risks a long term of imprisonment (if the charges relate to offences punishable by at least 8 years of imprisonment or if a court of first instance sentenced the accused to a minimum of 3 years of imprisonment). The maximum period of detention on remand before the case is referred to a court is limited to 3 months; in exceptional cases, to 12 months. The Secretariat is examining whether these measures are sufficient to prevent new violations similar to those found in these cases and whether the provision of Article 258§3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in conformity with the case-law of the European Court in this field. Additional information is awaited about the measures concerning the prompt examination of appeals against detention on remand.

The Ministry of Justice has sent out circulars, drawing the attention of courts and public prosecutors to the reasoning required for decisions prolonging detention on remand. The first five judgments were published for the moment in the Bulletin of the Council of Europe Information Centre and disseminated to the competent authorities.

- As regards the violation of Article 5§4, in respect of the lack of fairness of the procedure to review the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention on remand, the Trzaska case presents similarities to that of Niedbała (judgment of 04/07/2000), closed by Resolution ResDH(2002)124, following a legislative reform of criminal proceedings which took effect from 01/09/1998.

- As regards the violations of Article 6§1, the cases present similarities with a number of other cases concerning the length of judicial proceedings pending before the Committee of Ministers for supervision of general measures (see in particular Podbielski, Styranowski, Kudła and Lisiak (sub-sections 5.1 and 4.2).

- 1 case against the Slovak Republic

H46-745 41784 A.B., judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03

The case concerns an infringement of the applicant’s right to present her case on equal terms with the defendant in that, in 1997, without a formal and reasoned decision, a court rejected her requests for the appointment of a lawyer to represent her in certain civil proceedings and her case was dismissed in her absence. Furthermore, since the higher levels of jurisdiction confirmed this outcome in camera, the shortcoming was not remedied (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: At the 847th meeting (July 2003), the government was asked to provide information as regards whether the applicant could have her case re-examined in proceedings ensuring the equality of arms. The government indicated that according to Article 228 of the Code of Civil Procedure, reopening of proceedings may only be requested when there are new facts, decisions or evidence and there is a possibility to obtain an advantageous decision, or when the decision was delivered through judge’s fault.

Sub-section 4.2

General measures: The judgment of the European Court was published in the law revue Justičná Revue No. 6-7/2003. It was also sent to the presidents of the Regional Courts and to the President of the Supreme Court.

The government was asked to provide information about the measures envisaged in order to ensure representation by a lawyer in similar cases. It indicated that according to the Code of Civil Procedure, courts may appoint a representative at the request of a party who meets the requirements for waiver of court fees when it is necessary for the protection of that party’s interests. The president of the court’s chamber shall appoint an advocate to represent a party in the circumstances set out above (Article 30§§1, 2). An appeal on points of law is available when a party has been prevented, by the appellate court’s conduct, from acting before the court (Article 237(f)). Courts deliver a formal decision inter alia on issues relating to the conduct of proceedings (Article 167§1).

According to the Bar Act of 1990 everybody has the right to legal assistance and can ask any advocate for it. An advocate is entitled to refuse legal assistance to a person only for serious reasons permitting the advocate to conclude that he or she cannot provide such assistance in an appropriate manner. This does not apply to cases when an advocate was assigned to represent a person under Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Bar Association shall examine whether such a refusal was justified. A person whose request for legal assistance has been turned down may ask the Bar Association to appoint an advocate to represent him or her (Article 15 §§ 1, 2 and 3). The Government is of the opinion that this legislation is sufficient but it was wrongly applied in the present case, which is an isolated one.

Furthermore, measures in a broader sense were taken: The Constitutional Court, by judgment No. PL.ÚS 14/98 of 22/06/1999, abrogated Article 250f of the Code of Civil Procedure (which authorised in-camera decisions for simple cases) as contrary to the Constitution and to Article 6§1 of the Convention. As a result, this provision ceased to be effective from 14/07/1999 (see §31 of the European Court’s judgment). The Government indicated that this provision had been amended. The new text, which entered into force on 01/01/2003, is at present being examined by the Secretariat. As regards, more precisely, the cases concerning social security, Article 250s (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that in appellate proceedings or in proceedings on appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court a hearing is not required. Information about a potential amendment of this provision is awaited.

- 1 case against Spain

H46-467 58496 Prado Bugallo, judgment of 18/02/03, final on 18/05/03

The case concerns judicially authorised interception of the applicant’s telephone communications at different periods in 1990 and 1991, following a criminal investigation by the police into drug trafficking (violation of Article 8). The European Court considered in particular that the legislation in force at the material time did not precisely define the nature of the offences which could give rise to telephone tapping, the conditions for drawing up formal reports of the intercepted conversations or the use and erasure of recordings.

Individual measures: Information is awaited regarding whether the recordings at issue are in the possession of the authorities.

General measures: At the 847th meeting (July 2003), the Spanish delegation stated that information concerning further legislative measures (concerning telephone tapping) envisaged in addition to the amendments already adopted following the judgment of the European Court in the Valenzuela Contreras case (Resolution DH(99)127) would be provided. Information is expected in this respect. The judgment of the European Court has been published in Spanish in the Official Journal of the Ministry of Justice No. 1954 of 01/12/2003. Written confirmation of the dissemination of the judgment of is awaited.

Sub-section 4.2

- 2 cases against Sweden

H46-613 34619 Janosevic, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 21/05/03[94]

The case concerns the applicant’s right of access to court to determine the merits of criminal charges brought against him because of allegedly incorrect tax declarations. On 08/03/1996 the applicant requested reconsideration of the surcharges decided by the tax authority and a stay of execution. Notwithstanding this request, the tax authority took enforcement measures, particularly on the basis of the surcharges. The stay of execution was refused by the tax authority on 21/05/1996, as no security had been furnished for the amounts due. The enforcement proceedings were continued with the result that the applicant was declared bankrupt on 10/06/1996, before the administrative courts had decided on his appeal against the refusal to stay execution. His applications for leave to appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court were eventually refused on 03/11/1998 in respect of the stay of execution and on 18/09/1996 in respect of the bankruptcy. The decisions on the reconsideration of the surcharges, which were a precondition for the court’s examination of the appeal on their merits, were not taken until three years after the applicant’s request for reconsideration. The European Court found that the tax authority had failed to act with the required urgency and thereby unduly delayed a judicial determination of the issues, depriving the applicant of effective access to court (violation of Article 6§1).

The case also concerns the excessive overall length of the proceedings. The proceedings started on 01/12/1995, the date of the tax authority’s audit report containing the surcharges, and were still pending before the Administrative Court of Appeal at the date of the European Court’s judgment (almost 6 years and 8 months) (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures: During the first examination of the case at the 847th meeting (July 2003), acceleration of the proceedings pending at national level was requested, particularly to remedy the applicant’s lack of effective access to a court. At the 863rd meeting (December 2003) the Swedish delegation stated that the proceedings were ready for judgment at second instance. Further information is awaited concerning the state of these proceedings.

On 28/10/2003 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s request for legal aid in the above proceedings.

General measures: Publication of the European Court’s judgment was requested at the 847th meeting; details of the publication are awaited.

At the same meeting, information was requested about domestic case-law concerning requests for the reconsideration of Tax Authority decisions and for stays of execution since the judgment of the European Court was handed down in the present case. Information was also requested on other general measures that might be envisaged. At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), the Swedish delegation stated that some reforms had been made to the legislation concerning tax surcharges and that it would forward the relevant case-law and legislation to the Secretariat. Further information is awaited in both these respects.

H46-468 36985 Västberga Taxi Aktiebolag and Vulic, judgment of 23/07/02, final on 21/05/03[95]

The case concerns the applicants’ right of access to court in the determination of the merits of criminal charges brought against them because of allegedly incorrect tax declarations. On 04/09/1995 the first applicant (a taxi company) requested reconsideration of the surcharges decided by the tax authority. On 18/12/1995, the second applicant (the company’s president) appealed against the tax authority’s decision. The facts are very similar to those of Janosevic against Sweden, with the exception that, at the date of the first applicant’s dissolution, the question of the merits had already been pending before the County Administrative Court for two and a half years. The European Court considered that the tax authority as well as the County Administrative Court had failed to act with the required urgency and thereby unduly delayed the determination of the issues by a court, depriving the applicant of effective access to a court (violation of Article 6 § 1).

Sub-section 4.2

The case also concerns the excessive length of the proceedings. In respect of the first applicant, proceedings started on 20/02/1995, when the tax authority informed the company of its intention to impose surcharges. The proceedings on the merits of these surcharges were still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court at the date of the European Court’s judgment (almost seven years and five months). As regards the second applicant, the proceedings started on 11/08/1995, the date of the tax authority’s report including in particular the surcharges, and ended on 03/05/2002 (six years and nine months) (violation of Article 6 § 1).

Individual measures: During the first examination of the case at the 847th meeting (July 2003), acceleration of the proceedings pending at national level was requested, not least in order to remedy the applicant’s lack of effective access to a court.

At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), the Swedish delegation provided clarifications concerning the state of proceedings in this case. Information is awaited about the current state of the proceedings in the applicant’s appeal to the Stockholm Administrative Court of Appeal against the County Administrative Court decision of 22/05/2003.

General measures: This case presents strong similarities to the case of Janosevic v. Sweden (judgment of 23/07/2002) (see sub-section 4.2).

- 4 cases against Turkey

H46-746 39324 Demirel, judgment of 28/01/03, final on 28/04/03

The case concerns the applicant’s excessively long detention on remand between September 1991 and October 1998. In this respect, the European Court found that the relevant judicial decisions did not provide sufficient information as to the reasons justifying her being kept in detention (violation of Article 5§3). The case also concerns the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant (September 1991 – May 1999) (violation of Article 6§1). Finally, the case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in that her case was not heard by an independent and impartial tribunal, on account of the presence of a military judge on the bench of the State Security Court (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: At the 847th meeting (July 2003), the Secretariat suggested the possibility of a circular letter to the competent courts stressing the need to give reasons for decisions to continue detention on remand, indicating the concrete elements that justify such a measure. In addition, the draft law modifying the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was submitted for evaluation to the Council of Europe, contains relevant provisions in this respect.

As regards the violation of Article 6§1 in respect of the independence and impartiality of State Security Courts, the case presents similarities to that of Çıraklar against Turkey (judgment of 28/10/1998) which was closed by final resolution DH(99)555 following the adoption of general measures by the Turkish authorities.

H46-471 27244 Tepe İsak, judgment of 09/05/03, final on 19/08/03, Resolution ResDH(2001)66

The case concerns the authorities' failure to conduct an adequate and effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding the killing of the applicant's son in August 1993 in the province of Bitlis (South-East of Turkey) (violations of Articles 2 and 13). The European Court found that the authorities failed to take into account all the possible leads that might have indicated the persons responsible for the killing, failed to obtain information from all the allegedly essential witnesses and failed to conduct a full autopsy carried out by a qualified medico-legal expert.

The Court also found a violation of Article 38§1(a) concerning the state’s obligation to co-operate with the Court in establishing the facts of the case.

Sub-section 4.2

Individual and general measures: This case involves similar issues to those raised by certain other cases concerning actions of the security forces in Turkey (see sub-section 4.2 of the annotated agenda of the 854th meeting (October 2003)). At that meeting, the attention of Turkish authorities was drawn to the Committee of Minister’s Resolution ResDH(2001)66 concerning states’ obligation to co-operate with the European Court of Human Rights. At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), information was requested concerning the measures envisaged by the Turkish authorities in order to ensure such co-operation, and especially on the further measures that can be adopted allowing an effective investigation to be carried out in the present case.

The Turkish delegation indicated that autopsies are regularly conducted in cases of suspicious deaths, concluding that the problem identified by the European Court was an isolated one, and provided to the Secretariat the procedural rules governing forensic examinations.

H46-747 26680 Şener, judgment of 18/07/00[96]

*H46-748 34382 Denmark, judgment of 05/04/00- Friendly settlement

The Danish Government complained of ill treatment suffered by Mr. Kemal Koç, a Danish national, during his detention in Turkey from 8 to 16 August 1996. In addition, the Danish Government asked the Convention’s organs to examine whether the interrogation techniques allegedly applied to Mr. Koç were applied in Turkey as a widespread practice.

The Court took note of a friendly settlement reached between the parties according to which the respondent Government has agreed to pay the applicant Government an amount of 450 000 Danish crowns which includes legal expenses connected with the case. The amount has been paid.

The Government of Denmark and the Government of Turkey made a joint statement, which appears in §21 of the judgment. The Government of Denmark indicated in particular that it would make a significant financial contribution to the Council of Europe’s project aimed at re-organising the content of police training.

This project started on 11/02/2002 with a pilot course for the “training of the trainers”. It was extended until the end of 2003. Three follow-up courses took place from 29/09 to 11/11/2003. An evaluation report will be drawn up after the final working-group meeting, planned to take place on 18/02/2004.

According to the friendly settlement the Danish Government undertook to finance a bilateral project, which – subject to agreement between the two parties – should be aimed at the training of Turkish police officers in the field of human rights. Further information on this subject is awaited.

- 9 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-749 44647 Peck, judgment of 28/01/03, final on 28/04/03

The case concerns a disproportionate and unjustified interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life in that, in 1995, a local council disclosed pictures of him to the media, without sufficient safeguards to prevent disclosure inconsistent with the guarantees of this right, i.e., without his consent or masking his identity. These pictures showed the applicant in a town centre just before a suicide attempt, holding a knife. They were filmed by a closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera installed in a public street for disorder and crime prevention purposes (violation of Article 8).

The case also concerns the lack of effective remedy in relation to the violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life (violation of Article 13).

General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been published in the European Human Rights Reporter, 2003 36 p. 41. Advice to CCTV managers has been added to the Home Office’s “Crime Reduction” website (http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk) - a key source of information for practitioners - and has also been provided to the national CCTV user group for dissemination to its members.

Sub-section 4.2

As regards the violation of Article 8, the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 (in force in October 2000) provides general provisions according to which primary and subordinate legislation shall be read and given effect as far as possible in a manner compatible with the Convention. It is also unlawful for a public authority to act in a way incompatible with a right guaranteed by the Convention (see §47 of the Court’s judgment).

Specific provisions are found in the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA), which came into force on 01/03/2000, and the Information Commissioner’s Code of Practice 2001 adopted for its implementation. The DPA provides for the first time a statutory basis for systematic legal control of CCTV surveillance over public areas, setting legally enforceable standards for the collection and processing of images relating to individuals. It gives the Information Commissioner (an independent supervisory authority) the power to issue a Code of Practice setting out the measures that must be adopted to comply with the DPA (legally binding obligations) as well as simple guidance for the following of good practice.

According to the 2nd and 7th Data Protection Principles in the DPA and their implementation provisions in the Commissioner’s Code of Practice, disclosure of images should be made only in limited and prescribed circumstances. If purpose of the system is the prevention and protection of crime, disclosure of images to the media should be limited to cases where it is decided that the public’s assistance is needed in order to assist in the identification of a victim, witness or perpetrator in relation to a criminal incident. Images of individuals disclosed to the media in other circumstances will need to be disguised or blurred so that they are not readily identifiable. The Commissioner has the power to issue Enforcement Notices when he considers that there has been a breach of one of the Data Protection Principles. An Enforcement Notice would set out the remedial action that the Commissioner requires to ensure future compliance with the requirements of the Act. The Information Commissioner’s Code of Practice 2001 is currently being revised, but there is no date set yet for completion and publication of the new text. Information on its progress would be useful.

As regards Article 13, the government indicated that HRA provides an effective remedy.

H46-750 40787 Hirst, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01

The case concerns the fact that applicant could not obtain a review by a court of the lawfulness of his continued detention (once his tariff had expired) “at Her Majesty’s pleasure” (violation of Article 5§4).

The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment on 11/02/1980 and the tariff period of 15 years expired on 25/06/1994.

The case presents similarities to those of Hussain, Singh, A.T. and Oldham against the United Kingdom (see resolutions DH(98)149, DH(98)150, DH(98)202 and ResDH(2001)160 respectively).

Individual measures: The Committee was informed that the panel of the Parole Board met on 03/10/2002 (20 months after the last review – 02/02/2000) and recommended to grant the applicant open prison conditions. By letter of 16/12/2003, the United Kingdom authorities informed the Committee that the Prison Service had accepted the recommendation and on 20/02/2003 the applicant has been granted open prison conditions.

General measures: The United Kingdom delegation informed the Committee that in 2002 and 2003 the Lifer Unit of the Home Office issued and disseminated among its staff two circular letters underlining that the maximum period that may elapse between successive reviews of prison conditions of tariff-expired life prisoners should not exceed two years and that careful consideration should be given in every case to setting the date of the next review. It is observed however that in the applicant’s case a period of 20 months elapsed before the Parole Board reviewed the lawfulness of his detention. The judgment of the European Court suggests that a review by a court of the detention of a discretionary life prisoner should take place at intervals of not more than one year (see § 39 of the judgment).

The judgment of the European Court has been widely circulated within the Lifer Unit of the Home Office and has been published in The Times Law Reports on 03/08/2001 and discussed in the Criminal Law Review at (2001) Crim LR 919.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-751 24833 Matthews, judgment of 18/02/99- Grand Chamber, Interim Resolution DH(2001)79

The case concerns the non-respect of the right to participate in elections to choose the legislature in that no election to the European Parliament (EP) was held in Gibraltar (violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1).

General measures: The Government of the United Kingdom has informed the Committee of Ministers of the government’s efforts within the European Union to find a satisfactory solution to this case. The Government’s priority remains to secure the agreement of its EU partners to the enfranchisement of Gibraltar through a change to the 1976 EC Act on Direct Elections to the European Parliament. The United Kingdom is committed to achieving enfranchisement for Gibraltar for the 2004 EP elections.

The United Kingdom Parliament adopted the European Parliament (Representation) Act which received the Royal Assent on 08/05/2003. Pursuant to the provisions of this Act, Gibraltar should be treated as part of one of the English or Welsh electoral regions for the purposes of EP elections. As required by the Law, on 27/08/2003 the Electoral Commission made a recommendation to the Lord Chancellor as to include Gibraltar in the constituency of the South West region.

It should be noted that Spain has brought proceedings before the European Commission under Article 227 of the Treaty establishing the European Community on the grounds that this Act gives the franchise to persons who are not EU citizens and because it creates a “combined electoral region”, incorporating Gibraltar into an existing electoral region in England and Wales. The Commission has not adopted a reasoned opinion within the meaning of Article 227 of the Treaty, but declared on 29/10/2003 that the United Kingdom had organised the extension of voting rights to residents in Gibraltar within the framework of the margin of discretion given to member states under EU law.

The United Kingdom Delegation has submitted further information concerning the measures to implement the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 so as to ensure participation of Gilbraltar residental in the

European Parliament elections in June 2004. The Secretariat is examining this information.

The case has received extensive newspaper coverage and the judgment of the European Court has been published, in particular in the Human Rights Report, Human Rights Digest and other legal journals.

H46-752 27229 Keenan, judgment of 03/04/01

The case concerns in particular the inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted on the applicant’s son due to the conditions of his detention (violation of Article 3). The case also concerns the absence of effective remedies enabling the applicant’s son to contest the disciplinary sanctions to which he was subjected or available to the applicant herself, following her son’s suicide (violation of Article 13).

General measures: The judgment of the European Court was published at (2001) 33 EHRR 38. On 24/11/2003 the United Kingdom Delegation forwarded to the Secretariat information concerning changes introduced with respect to segregation policy in prisons, aimed at avoiding future similar violations of Article 3. The revised Segregation Policy (PSO 1700) to be followed by all prison establishments was approved by directors in July 2003 and was implemented in establishments from 17/11/2003. Relevant sections of the Prison Discipline Manual have been amended so as to bring them into line with the new segregation policy

and the publication of the revised Prison Discipline Manual is due to go to the Prison Service directors for approval early in 2004. It is also expected that the Prison Rules 1999 will be revised in early 2004 to bring them into line with the new policy. As regards the violation found of Article 13, the United Kingdom authorities informed the Secretariat on 10/12/2001 that the prison complaints procedures had been the subject of a major review, with new procedures to be phased in from late 2001 to early 2002.

Details of the new complaints procedures and of the date of their entry into force are awaited, as is information as to the approval by directors of the revised Prison Discipline Manual and the revision of the Prison Rules.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-1199 28945 T.P. and K.M., judgment of 10/05/01 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns a breach of the applicants’ right to respect for family life, in that the first applicant was deprived of adequate involvement in the decision-making process concerning the care of her daughter (the second applicant), as a result of the local authority’s failure to submit a video document to the competent national court in order to determine whether to disclose it to the first applicant. This interference was considered by the Court as “not necessary in a democratic society” (violation of Article 8).

It also concerns the fact that the applicants did not have available to them an appropriate means for obtaining a determination of their allegations that the local authority breached their right to respect for family life and the possibility of obtaining an enforceable award of compensation for the consequent damage (violation of Article 13).

This case is to be examined together with the cases of D.P. and J.C., Z. and others, and E. and others.

General measures: The European Court's judgment in this case has been published at [2001] 2 FLR 549. The government was also invited to disseminate it to all the authorities directly concerned.

As regards the violation of Article 13, the government was invited to clarify whether the Human Rights Act (HRA) provided a legal basis for damages claims, given that the domestic legal system did not establish liability of local authorities for damages in similar cases. The government is of the opinion that the HRA provides an effective remedy through Section 8 (4), which states that, in determining whether to make an award and, in the affirmative its amount, domestic courts must take into account the principles applied by the European Court of Human Rights under Article 41 of the Convention. The Secretariat is currently examining this information.

Following the European Court’s judgment in this case, several other judgments were delivered (Z. and others, E. and others and D.P. and J.C.), finding violations of Article 13 in cases involving various acts of local authorities. It was decided to treat these cases together in order to allow a global approach to be taken.

H46-753 38719 D.P. and J.C, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

The case concerns the absence of an effective remedy in domestic law in that the applicants did not have appropriate means to obtain a determination concerning their allegations that a local authority had failed to protect them from sexual abuse during their childhood, or the possibility of obtaining an enforceable award of compensation for the damage thus suffered (violation of Article 13).

This case is to be examined together with the cases of T.P. and K.M., Z. and others and E. and others.

General measures: The Court's judgment in this case has been published at (2003) 36 EHRR 14; the Government was also invited to disseminate it to the authorities directly concerned. For other measures, see the comments above with respect to T.P. and K.M.

H46-754 29392 Z. and others, judgment of 10/05/01 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns, in particular, the failure of local authorities to fulfil their obligation to protect the applicants (minors at the time) from inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted by their parents (violation of Article 3) and the fact that they had no effective remedy in this respect (violation of Article 13).

This case is to be examined together with the cases of T.P. and K.M., E. and others and D.P. and J.C.

General measures: The European Court's judgment in this case has been published at (2002) 34 EHRR 3 and [2001] 2 FLR 612. The Government was also invited to disseminate it to all the authorities directly concerned. The United Kingdom authorities informed the Committee of Ministers that the legislation in question (Child Care Act 1980) has been replaced by the Children Act 1989, which came into force on 14/10/1991. As regards specifically the violation of Article 13, see the comments above with respect to T.P. and K.M.

Sub-section 4.2

H46-755 33218 E. and others, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 10/01/03

The case concerns inhuman and degrading treatment of the applicants arising from the failure on the part of the social services to fulfil their obligation to supervise the situation in the applicants’ home and to take appropriate measures in order to protect the applicants from sexual and physical abuse by their mother’s partner, W.H. (violation of Article 3). Despite the fact that W.H. was actually convicted, in 1977, of “indecent behaviour” against two of the applicants, his further visits to the applicants’ mother (where his own children also lived) were not properly monitored by the competent local services.

The case also concerns the lack of an effective domestic remedy making it possible to establish the negligence of the social services and to claim compensation (violation of Article 13).

This case is to be examined together with the cases of T.P. and K.M., Z. and others and D.P. and J.C.

General measures: The Court's judgment in this case has been published at (2003) 37 EHRR 31; the Government was also invited to disseminate it to all the authorities directly concerned. As regards specifically the violation of Article 13, see the comments above with respect to T.P. and K.M.

H46-756 50272 Hutchison Reid, judgment of 20/02/03, final on 20/05/03

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to have the lawfulness of his detention in a mental hospital reviewed by a court because in his appeal for release in 1994 the domestic courts placed the burden of proof on him to establish that his mental disorder was not treatable and, therefore, his continued detention did not satisfy the conditions of lawfulness (violation of Article 5§4). The case also concerns the excessive length (4 years and 8 months) of the proceedings concerning the applicant’s release (violation of Article 5§4).

Individual measures: The applicant is still detained. In July 1999, he lodged a statutory appeal with the sheriff against his detention, which was referred to the competent domestic courts for the determination of the question of whether the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) Scotland Act 1999 (see below) was compatible with the Convention. On 15/10/2001, the Privy Council concluded for its compatibility and remitted the case to the sheriff. On 08/07/2003, the case was stayed at the instance of the applicant’s agents who were seeking further medical reports. Information would be useful as to how the burden of proof was placed during these proceedings, as well as about the outcome of the pending proceedings.

General measures: As regards the first violation of Article 5§4, the Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) Scotland Act 1999 (Section 64 A1) now makes it clear that in cases such as the applicant's, the fact that the mental disorder is not treatable does not mean that release is required where a risk to the public remains (see §§ 34 and 53 of the Court’s judgment). This Act also provides that the burden of proof is on the authorities. As regards the second violation of Article 5§4, information is awaited about measures envisaged to ensure prompt determination of applications for release. Confirmation of the publication and dissemination of the judgment of the European Court is also awaited.

SUB-SECTION 4.3 – SPECIAL PROBLEMS

- 2 cases against Turkey

H46-757 25781 Cyprus against Turkey, judgment of 10/05/01 – Grand Chamber

CM/Inf(2004)4, CM/Inf(2004)4/1, CM/Inf(2004)4/2, CM/Inf(2004)4/3, CM/Inf(2004)4/4 and CM/Inf(2004)4/5

The case relates to the situation that has existed in northern Cyprus since the conduct of military operations there by Turkey in July and August 1974 and the continuing division of the territory of Cyprus. The European Court of Human Rights held that the matters complained of by Cyprus in its application entailed Turkey’s responsibility under the European Convention on Human Rights. In its judgment, the Court held that there had been 14 violations of the Convention:

Greek-Cypriot missing persons and their relatives

- a continuing violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention concerning the failure of the authorities of the respondent State to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of Greek-Cypriot missing persons who disappeared in life-threatening circumstances;

- a continuing violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) concerning the failure of the Turkish authorities to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of the Greek-Cypriot missing persons in respect of whom there was an arguable claim that they were in Turkish custody at the time of their disappearance;

- a continuing violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) in that the silence of the Turkish authorities in the face of the real concerns of the relatives attained a level of severity which could only be categorised as inhuman treatment.

Home and property of displaced persons

- a continuing violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence) concerning the refusal to allow the return of any Greek-Cypriot displaced persons to their homes in northern Cyprus;

- a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) concerning the fact that Greek-Cypriot owners of property in northern Cyprus were being denied access to and control, use and enjoyment of their property as well as any compensation for the interference with their property rights;

- a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) concerning the failure to provide to Greek Cypriots not residing in northern Cyprus any remedies to contest interferences with their rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Living conditions of Greek Cypriots in Karpas region of northern Cyprus

- a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus, concerning the effects of restrictions on freedom of movement which limited access to places of worship and participation in other aspects of religious life;

- a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as school-books destined for use in their primary school were subject to excessive measures of censorship;

- a continuing violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in that their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was not secured in case of their permanent departure from that territory and in that, in case of death, inheritance rights of relatives living in southern Cyprus were not recognised;

- a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) in respect of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus in so far as no appropriate secondary-school facilities were available to them;

- a violation of Article 3 in that the Greek Cypriots living in the Karpas area of northern Cyprus had been subjected to discrimination amounting to degrading treatment;

- a violation of Article 8 concerning the right of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus to respect for their private and family life and to respect for their home;

- a violation of Article 13 by reason of the absence of remedies in respect of interferences by the authorities, as a matter of practice, with the rights of Greek Cypriots living in northern Cyprus under Articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1.

Sub-section 4.3

Rights of Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus

- a violation of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) on account of the legislative practice of authorising the trial of civilians by military courts.

The Deputies examined this case for the first time at their 760th meeting (July 2001). During the second examination of the case at the 764th meeting (October 2001) delegations strongly supported the proposal made by the Delegation of Liechtenstein that the Committee should follow the approach already proposed by the Director General of human rights at the 760th meeting, that is, identifying specific categories of violations according to the complexity of the execution measures required, without preventing the Deputies from pursuing in parallel an examination of the other issues raised in the Court’s Judgment :

- the question of missing persons,

- the living conditions of Greek Cypriots in northern Cyprus,

- the rights of Turkish Cypriots living in northern Cyprus,

- the question of the homes and property of displaced persons.

Since then, the different categories have been addressed at several times and the Delegation of Turkey as well as other delegations provided information that has been examined by the Committee of Ministers (for further details on the history of this case’s examination by the Committee of Ministers, see document CM/Inf(2004)4).

For the present meeting, the Chairman proposed to focus the debates on the question of missing persons and on some specific questions concerning the living conditions of the Greek Cypriots in the northern part of Cyprus, namely the censorship of schoolbooks for Greek Cypriot primary schools and the problems raised by secondary education, some aspects of religious life, of property rights in case of permanent departure from the north of Cyprus and of the relatives inheritance rights in case of death.

In the framework of the earlier discussions on the question of missing persons (see CM/Inf(2004)4/1), the Delegation of Turkey has underlined the importance of the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus (CMP), stressing the efforts of Turkey to contribute to the work of this committee and the need to reactivate it. Several other delegations have referred to the judgment of the Court, which states that “the respondent State’s procedural obligation at issue cannot be discharged through its contribution to the investigatory work of the CMP [and that] (…) although the CMP’s procedures are undoubtedly useful for the humanitarian purpose for which they were established, they are not of themselves sufficient to meet the standard of an effective investigation required by Article 2 of the Convention, especially in view of the narrow scope of that body’s investigations”.

Information has also been provided on the living conditions of the Greek Cypriots living in the northern part of Cyprus, including the above-mentioned specific questions (see CM/Inf(2004)4/3).

As far as the violation of Article 9 is concerned, the Turkish authorities have in particular indicated that the exercise of freedom of conscience and religion in the northern part of Cyprus is guaranteed under Article 23 of the “Constitution of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC)”. In addition, following the decisions taken by the “Council of Ministers of the TRNC” on 21 April, 29 April and 9 May 2003, crossings between the north and the southern Cyprus are now also permitted and, consequently, access to all religious sites, as well as participation in all religious events such as funerals is allowed. The Cypriot authorities have underlined that, so far, the Turkish authorities have not approved the nomination of any supplementary priest, while one single priest has had to ensure, for the whole Karpaz area, religious ceremonies in three different villages. On this point, the Turkish authorities have stressed that the number of Greek Cypriots living in this area does not justify the nomination of other priests and that, in any event, no such request has been made. Furthermore, in cases of exceptional need, the new situation as to the possibility of circulation between the north and the south now allows priests living in the south to officiate at religious services in the north in accordance with certain regulations.

Sub-section 4.3

As far as property rights are concerned, the Turkish authorities have indicated that, in accordance with the revised legislation now in force, any alien – including Greek Cypriots and Maronites – living in the north of Cyprus may transfer the ownership of their immovable property to a person they designate in case they permanently depart from the north and settle in the south of Cyprus. The legal procedure to provide for this transfer has, however, to be started within one year from the date of departure. In case of the death of a Greek Cypriot or Maronite residing in the north of Cyprus, his/her heirs may exercise their inheritance rights without any restrictions provided that they start the procedures for the administration of the estate within one year from the date of death.

Concerning the censorship of schoolbooks for Greek Cypriot primary schools in the northern part of the island, considered as excessive by the Court in respect of Article 10 of the Convention, the Turkish authorities have declared – submitting examples – that many books contain demonstrated bias. This has been denied by the Cypriot authorities.

Finally, in connection with the issue of secondary education, the Turkish authorities have underlined that there are too few Greek Cypriot children to justify the opening of a secondary school in the north of the island, but that they could receive an appropriate education since it is now possible to cross freely between the north and the south of Cyprus. These arguments were also put forward in reply to the letter sent on 17 October 2003 by the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers to his Turkish counterpart to express the Committee’s concerns regarding the recent refusal to allow the opening of a secondary school in Rizokarpasso for Greek Cypriot children and to request the “Government’s co-operation to ensure that immediate steps are taken to enable [it] to be opened and to function effectively (…)”.

H46-758 26308 Institut de Prêtres français and others, judgment of 14/12/00 – Friendly settlement - Interim Resolution ResDH(2003)173

The case concerns a Turkish judicial decision of 1993 annulling the applicant Institute’s property entitlement to a plot of land on the grounds that, by letting part of this land to a private company, this Institute was no longer eligible for special treatment as a non-profit body (complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 9). The parties concluded a friendly settlement according to which the Government undertook the following obligations:

- The Treasury and the Directorate General of Foundations recognize the right to usufruct to the benefit of the priests representing the applicant Institute. This right to usufruct shall comprise the full use and enjoyment of the land and the buildings thereon and the right to rent the land for profit-making purposes in order to meet its needs;

- The two above-mentioned state authorities agree to undertake the formalities necessary to register their respective declarations in the land register with a view to renewing the life tenancy in favour of the priests who will replace the current usufructuary;

- The Directorate General of Foundations waives its claim to USD 41,670 owed by the applicant Institute in rent collected over the five years since its property title was annulled.

The necessity of urgent compliance with these obligations has been stressed in the Committee of Ministers at each of its DH meetings since October 2001, as well as in two letters of the Presidency of the Committee of Minister the first sent on 06/11/2002 to the Turkish Permanent Representative, the second on 17/06/2003 to Mr Gül, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey.

On numerous occasions, the Turkish delegation indicated that the problems encountered to ensure the respect of the commitments made were going to be solved. On 18/04/2003, the Council of State, whose consultation in this context was prescribed by the internal law, did not approve the friendly settlement.

On 08/10/2003, the Committee of Ministers adopted an Interim Resolution “urging the Turkish authorities in order to comply without delay with the Court’s judgment in this case” and deciding “to pursue the supervision of the execution of the present judgment, if need be, at each of its forthcoming meetings, until all necessary measures have been adopted”.

At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), the Turkish delegation indicated that following the Interim Resolution the case had been referred once more to the Council of State and that a solution would be found within a reasonable time.

Sub-section 4.3

- 1 case against Ukraine

H46-759 48553 Sovtransavto Holding, judgment of 25/07/02, final on 06/11/02 and judgment of 02/10/03, not final (Article 41)

The case concerns the failure to respect the applicant company’s right to a fair trial before an impartial and independent tribunal in respect of certain proceedings conducted between 1997 and 2002 before the Ukrainian courts with a view to establishing the unlawfulness of domestic decisions which resulted in the depreciation of its shares in - and the ensuing loss of control over - a Ukrainian transport company (violation of Article 6§1).

The main deficiencies found by the Court consist of:

- repeated attempts by the President of Ukraine to influence domestic court decisions;

- application of "protest" procedure ("application for supervision") making it possible to quash final judicial decisions without any limitations;

- the refusal by courts to examine the arguments on the merits in a public hearing and the absence of adequate motivation of judicial decisions.

The Court concluded in addition that the manner in which the impugned proceedings were conducted and concluded had also violated the applicant company's right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

Individual measures: The Delegation of Ukraine indicated that on 19/08/2003 the Supreme Court had granted the applicant's request for reopening of the proceedings. The resolution of the Kyiv Appellate Commercial Court of 24/01/2002 and the decisions of the Commercial Court of Kyiv Region of 10-23/04/2001 were quashed and the case was referred to the Commercial Court of Lugansk Region for new examination. Further information on the development of these proceedings is awaited.

The question of the individual measures will also be examined in the light of the final decision of the European Court in the proceedings concerning the application of Article 41. (On 02/10/2003 the European Court delivered its judgment on Article 41 on the just satisfaction. On 29/12/2003 the applicant company requested the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber).

General measures: As regards the problem of the executive's repeated interferences with judicial proceedings, the Ukrainian authorities indicated that on 12/07/2003 the President of Ukraine had instructed:

- the Prime Minister to ensure with the participation of the General Prosecutor’s Office the unconditional implementation of the provisions of Ukrainian law and of the ECHR concerning the inadmissibility of any form of interference in the independence of the judiciary, whether in pending proceedings or otherwise to influence courts or judges;

- the Ministry of Justice to analyse Ukrainian legislation concerning the guarantees of independence of the judiciary with a view to submitting, if necessary, proposals on improvement of legislation and appropriate administrative and financial measures and to elaborate and implement together with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in co-operation with the Council of Europe and the European Union, all training measures requested to ensure that the administration of justice in Ukraine conforms with the legislation in force and international treaties, including the ECHR;

On 26/08/2003 the Cabinet of Ministers ordered ministries and other central or regional executive bodies of Ukraine to take all necessary measures with a view to enforcing the President’s above-mentioned order. Further information concerning the measures envisaged or already taken for the implementation this order is awaited.

The Law on the judiciary adopted in February 2002 set up the State Judicial Administration, a specialised institution independent from the executive with a view to management of the national judiciary; all Ukrainian courts are henceforth financed from the central budget; the budget assigned to the courts is administered by the country's supreme courts.

As a result of in-service training of Ukrainian magistrates in the framework of the Council of Europe/European Union joint initiative, domestic courts apply the Convention more frequently (certain examples of the Constitutional Court's decisions referring to the Convention have been submitted to the Secretariat).

Sub-section 4.3

Concerning supervisory review (protest), it was recalled that this procedure had been abolished in Ukrainian law since June 2001. The Ukrainian delegation provided additional information concerning the powers of prosecutors in civil cases similar to that of “protest”. It appears that according to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Commercial Procedure, public prosecutors have the power to ask for the annulment of final judgments in civil proceedings in order to protect individuals’ or state interests, without having been a party in these proceedings. The Secretariat is analysing this information, as well as the legal provisions concerning this question.

Finally, as regards other problems in the judgment (different approaches of the Ukrainian Courts in the application and interpretation of domestic law; absence of motivation of certain decisions of national courts etc - §§79 and 81 of the judgment), the authorities were also invited to address these issues to prevent new, similar violations. In this context the need for wider dissemination of the judgment of the European Court and for regular in-service training of Ukrainian judges on the Convention and the Court's case-law was stressed.

The European Court's judgment has been translated and published in the Official Journal, issue n°44/2003, in the Bulletin of the Ministry of Justice, n°9/2003 and in the journal Case-law of the ECHR.

At the 841st meeting it was agreed that a draft interim resolution would be prepared, taking stock of the measures adopted so far and pointing out the outstanding questions. At the time of issuing these notes, the Secretariat was preparing the draft interim resolution in consultation with the Ukrainian Delegation.

- 1 case against the United Kingdom

H54-760 25599 A., judgment of 23/09/98

CM/Inf(2004)6

The case concerns the failure of the state to protect the applicant from ill-treatment (1993-1994) by his step-father (violation of Article 3).

General measures: Newspaper coverage has been extensive. The judgment of the European Court has been published at (1999) 27 EHRR 611 and [1998] 2 FLR 959.

As regards the legislative change which the United Kingdom authorities had undertaken to have adopted (see §24 of the judgment), the Secretariat received a copy of the Consultation Paper on the Physical Punishment of Children prepared by the United Kingdom authorities. Answers to the questions raised in this paper were ready by mid-2001. It was indicated that the answers should be the basis for further discussions on possible legislative changes to be introduced. Subsequently, at the 775th meeting (December 2001) the United Kingdom authorities indicated that the Human Rights Act would suffice to prevent the recurrence of a breach of the kind found by the Court in this case so that no special legislative change was necessary. However, this new approach raised the question as to how parents, in the absence of a clear legislative change, would be made aware of the new standard. At the 819th meeting (December 2002) the United Kingdom Representative responded that ministers had asked the Attorney General to continue his review of the use of the “reasonable chastisement” defence. His report of May 2002 had suggested that it was indeed being used reasonably. Furthermore, steps had been taken to support families through promoting positive parenting, such as an HM Treasury announcement of a 25 million-pound (37 million-euro) three-year programme to support parents through the voluntary sector.

The representative added that the government-funded National Family and Parenting Institute had launched a video and leaflet called “From Breakfast to Bedtime”, which provides tips for parents on how to cope with “meltdown moments” with toddlers. Both parents and professionals had received it very well and NFPI had had to produce additional copies to meet demand. It deliberately avoids any mention of smacking since

Sub-section 4.3

preliminary research with parents found that the positive parenting messages were much better received on their own. It was also stated that Ministers were aware that the smacking rules are different in Wales and Scotland where there is a total ban on childminders using corporal punishment, and were listening carefully to what others were saying on these issues. The Delegation further indicated that the government would be reviewing the National Standards in 2003 and this would be the opportunity for making any changes. In view, however, of recent United Kingdom case-law evidencing a continuing high degree of tolerance in respect of what violence constitutes “reasonable chastisement” (discussed in particular at a seminar organised in Strasbourg on 21-22/11/2002) and the government’s undertaking before the Court, the opinion was expressed that, apart from the measures already announced, legislative changes would be needed in this case.

The Committee consequently asked to be kept informed of any new development in particular as regards legislative change.

At the 834th meeting (April 2003), the Committee asked the Secretariat to prepare a memorandum containing the information received so far in the case.

Subsequently, in September 2003, the Secretariat received information from the United Kingdom authorities and the applicant’s representative. Reference to the latter information has been included in the memorandum (CM/Inf(2004)6), which was distributed to the Deputies in order to be examined at the 854th DH meeting (October 2003). The Committee decided to resume the examination of the memorandum prepared by the Secretariat at the 863rd DH meeting (December 2003).

At the latter meeting the United Kingdom Delegation voiced concerns about the enforceability of legislation abolishing the defence of reasonable chastisement. It was emphasised that, in addition to the measures already announced, legislative changes appeared to be required in this case. During a meeting with the Secretariat on 16/12/2003, the United Kingdom delegation proposed to forward in writing the reasons why the entry into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 and developments in case-law together with sufficient public awareness of the applicable standards would, in the view of the UK authorities, make legislative changes unnecessary for the execution of the judgment. This information is awaited.

SECTION 5 - SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED

(See Addendum 5 for part or all these cases)

Action

The Deputies are invited to supervise progress in the adoption of general measures aiming at preventing further similar violations to those found by the Court in the following cases. If necessary, supplementary information on some or all the cases listed below will appear in Addendum 5. The Deputies are invited to resume consideration of these cases in 6 months at the latest.

SUB-SECTION 5.1 – LEGISLATIVE AND/OR REGULATORY CHANGES

- 1 case against Austria

H46-761 60553 Malek, judgment of 12/06/03, final on 12/09/03

The case concerns the excessive length of certain disciplinary proceedings before the Disciplinary Council of the Lower Austrian Bar Chamber (Disziplinarrat der Niederösterreichischen Rechtsanwaltskammer). The proceedings began on 16/09/1993 and ended on 06/04/2000 (6 years and 7 months for three degrees of jurisdiction) (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), the government indicated that the Disciplinary Council, in order to avoid abuse of procedure and delays, had introduced a new Code of guidelines, providing a deadline for the submission of evidence. This Code is being examined by the Secretariat.

- 1 case against Luxembourg

H46-653 44978 Berlin, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03

This case concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings (divorce), which started in 1983 and lasted more than 17 years for two degrees of jurisdiction (violation of Article 6§1). In those days, i.e. when the proceedings were before the district court (tribunal d’arrondissement - first degree of jurisdiction, from 1983 to 1999), parties to civil cases had sole control of the progress of proceedings. Thus in the present case, most of the delays in the proceedings were imputable to the behaviour of the parties and the judge had no effective way of penalising their inactivity. On the other hand, the proceedings before the court of appeal (1999 to 2000) took place after 16/09/1998, date of entry into force of the Law of 11/08/1996 which introduced into Luxembourg civil procedure the Juge de mise en état, a magistrate responsible for setting the date-limits for pre-trial investigations who is also empowered to serve injunctions on counsel.

Individual measures: The proceedings relating to the liquidation of the joint estate that had existed between the husband and wife were still pending when the Court rendered its judgment. The applicant did not get in contact to complain about that.

General measures: The Luxembourg delegation stated at the 863rd meeting (December 2003) that, according to the authorities of Luxembourg, the Law of 11/08/1996 is a sufficient measure to prevent new similar violations. Information showing that this law does have such effects since its coming into force (not only concerning divorce issues, but more generally concerning civil procedure) is awaited. At the same meeting, the delegation also stated that the judgment had been published in CODEX, law and politics monthly review of Luxembourg (Internet site: www.codex-online.com).

- 36 cases against Poland

- Cases of length of civil proceedings

*H46-55 39597 Biskupska, judgment of 22/07/2003, final on 03/12/2003, rectified on 11/09/2003[97]

H54-762 27916 Podbielski, judgment of 30/10/98

H54-763 28616 Styranowski, judgment of 30/10/98

H46-764 38328 Bejer, judgment of 04/10/01, final on 04/01/02

H46-765 38665 Bukovski, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03, rectified on 10/07/03

H46-766 27918 C., judgment of 03/05/01

H32-767 24559 Gibas, Interim Resolution DH(97)242

H46-768 48001 Goc, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 16/07/02

H46-769 29695 Gronuś, judgment of 28/05/02, final on 28/08/02

H46-770 46034 Gryziecka and Gryziecki, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

H46-771 29691 Jedamski, judgment of 26/07/01, final on 26/10/01

H46-772 52518 Koral, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 21/05/03

Sub-section 5.1

H46-773 37437 Kubiszyn, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

H46-774 43779 Mączyński, judgment of 15/01/02, final on 15/04/02

H46-775 52168 Majkrzyk, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

H46-776 35843 Malinowska, judgment of 14/12/00, final on 14/03/01

H46-777 40887 Maliszewski, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

H46-778 36250 Parciński, judgment of 18/03/01, final on 18/03/02

H46-779 51429 Paśnicki, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

H46-780 40330 Piechota, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

H46-781 39619 Piłka Andrzej and Barbara, judgment of 06/05/03, final on 06/08/03

H46-782 29455 Pogorzelec, judgment of 17/07/01, final on 12/12/01

H46-783 77597 R.O., judgment of 25/03/03, final on 25/06/03

H46-417 41033 R.W., judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03, rectified on 11/09/03[98]

H46-784 38804 Rawa, judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03

H46-785 37645 Sawicka, judgment of 01/10/02, final on 01/01/03

H46-418 42078 Sitarek, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03, rectified on 11/09/03[99]

H46-786 40694 Sobański, judgment of 21/01/03, revised on 23/01/03, final on 09/07/03,

rectified on 17/09/03

H46-787 25693+ Sobczyk, judgment of 26/10/00, final on 26/01/01

H46-788 40835 Szarapo, judgment of 23/05/02, final on 23/08/02

H46-789 48684 Uthke, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 18/09/02

H46-790 39505 W.M., judgment of 14/01/03, final on 14/04/03

H46-791 65660 W.Z., judgment of 24/10/02, final on 24/01/03

H46-792 32734 Wasilewski, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 06/09/01

H46-793 33082 Wojnowicz, judgment of 21/09/00, final on 22/01/01

H46-794 34158 Zawadzki, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 27/03/02

The Secretariat is preparing a draft Interim Resolution in co-operation with the Polish Representation.

SUB-SECTION 5.2 – CHANGES OF COURTS’ CASE-LAW OR OF ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICE

- 1 case against France

H46-100 52206 Mokrani, judgment of 15/07/03, final on 15/10/03[100]

This case concerns a deportation order (not executed to date) issued in 1995 against the applicant, an Algerian national. The European Court, while acknowledging that contracting states needed to act with great firmness in the field at issue (drug trafficking), found that the deportation, if executed, would not be proportionate to the aims pursued, given in particular the strength of the applicant’s personal ties to France and the absence of known links in Algeria (violation of Article 8).

Individual measures: Written confirmation of the following information is awaited. At the 863rd meeting (December 2003) the French delegation stated that the applicant is permanent resident in France. On 30/10/2003, he was placed on a compulsory residence order. The deportation order still stands but it has not been implemented and, in the light of the Court’s judgment, will not be. The applicant may apply to have the order annulled. Finally, the applicant is entitled to work.

General measures: At the same meeting information was asked for concerning the implementation of the order (ordonnance) of 02/11/1945, concerning the conditions of entry and residence of aliens in France, as regards deportations. In particular, information is awaited concerning how in which the thorough examination of individual situations is ensured before the adoption of a deportation order, from the viewpoint of Article 8 and of the European Court’s case-law. It should be noted that this order of 1945 was amended by a law of 26/11/2003, particularly its provisions concerning the deportation of aliens. Henceforth, an alien in a situation similar to the applicant’s enjoys enhanced protection against a deportation order.

- 1 case against the Slovak Republic

H46-795 32106 Komanický, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02[101]

SUB-SECTION 5.3 – PUBLICATION / DISSEMINATION

- 1 case against Austria

H46-796 43454 Bakker, judgment of 10/04/03, final on 10/07/03

The case concerns the fact that, in 1998, the applicant was denied an oral hearing before an administrative court in administrative proceedings concerning the denial of authorisation to exercise his profession as a self-employed physiotherapist (violation of Article 6§1).

Individual measures : Article 45§1 of the Administrative Court Act 1985 (Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz)provides the possibility to reopen proceedings on request by a party when the provisions concerning the right to be heard were not complied with and it may be assumed that the judgment could have been different.

General measures: The judgment of the European Court was published in the Österreichische Institut für Menschenrechte - Newsletter 2003 (2). Following the case of Stallinger and Kuso (ResDH (97)405), an amendment to Section 39§2(6) of the Administrative Court Act entered into force on 01/09/1997. According to the new provision, "notwithstanding a party’s application, the Administrative Court may decide not to hold a hearing ... if this is not against Article 6§1 of the European Convention on Human Rights" (§24 of the Court’s judgment). The government is of the opinion that the interpretation of this provision by the domestic courts in the present case was isolated and that therefore, the large dissemination of the judgment is sufficient to prevent similar violations in the future.

- 1 case against Croatia

H46-797 62912 Benzan, judgment of 08/11/02 - Friendly settlement

The case concerns the applicant’s complaints that he had suffered inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the conditions under which he was detained in B-wing of the Lepoglava State Prison (complaint under Article 3) and that that he had no remedy in this respect (complaint under Article 13). The applicant also complained of a violation of his right to respect of his correspondence in that he was prevented from contacting his lawyer (complaint under Article 8).

In June 2002 the applicant was moved to another cell in one of the renovated wings of the above mentioned prison (see §15 of the judgment).

General measures: The Croatian government has fulfilled its undertaking according to the friendly settlement concluded, in particular to renovate B-Wing of the Lepoglava State Prison. The Croatian delegation indicated that the judgment of the European Court was transmitted to the authorities of this prison. Confirmation of the publication of the judgment and its dissemination to the other prison authorities is awaited.

- 1 case against Germany

H46-646 52853 Yilmaz Saldiray, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

The case concerns the fact that the expulsion of the applicant to Turkey by an administrative decision of 04/09/1998 (final on 29/10/1999), combined with an indefinite exclusion from German territory, amounted to a disproportionate interference in the applicant’s right to family life, taking into account the circumstances of the case, namely his family situation, in particular the birth of his son on February 1999, and the fact that he held a permanent residence permit in Germany when the expulsion order was made (violation of Article 8).

On 07/03/2000 the applicant left Germany for Turkey. On 15/06/2000, the administrative authority of the Allgäu district refused, for the time being, to grant a provisional residence permit to visit his son.

Sub-section 5.3

Individual measures: The German delegation has indicated that the administrative authorities set the term of the expulsion order to expire on 07/03/2007. The applicant not having appealed against this decision, it has become final. Article 9§3 of the Law on foreigners (Ausländergesetz) provides that before expiry of an expulsion order, a foreigner may exceptionally be permitted to enter German territory for a short period, when his presence is reasonably necessary or when the refusal of such a permit would be excessively severe (unbillige Härte). On this basis, the applicant may request a short-term residence permit in order to visit his child (§§ 28 and 31 of the Court’s judgment).

General measures: The dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to all authorities concerned has already been confirmed. Confirmation of its publication is awaited.

- 1 case against Greece

H46-677 51473 Katsaros, judgment of 06/06/02, final on 06/09/02 and judgment of 13/11/03,

final on 13/02/04 (Article 41)

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court in that the authorities failed to comply within a reasonable time with judicial decisions revoking ipso jure an expropriation (judgment of the Court of Appeal of 1993) and inviting the administration to lift the restriction on the applicant’s property rights (judgment of the Council of State of 1999) (violation of Article 6§1). The case also concerns an illegal interference with the applicant’s property rights in that, despite the order revoking the expropriation and the decision modifying the alignment plan, finally carried out in 2001, the state deprived the applicant of the peaceful possession of his property by prohibiting him from using it (violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).

This case presents certain similarities with the Pialopoulos case (see CM/Del/OJOT(2002)863, sub‑section 4.2) and the Hornsby case (judgment of 19/03/1997) closure of which is proposed following a number of general measures already adopted (Article 95 §§ 4-5 of the revised Constitution, Act 3068/12/11/2002 establishing specific judicial monitoring of the administration and allowing seizure against the state’s private property).

General measures: The judgment of the European Court has been published on the official website of the State Legal Council (www.nsk.gr). Its wide dissemination to the competent administrative authorities, accompanied by a circular drawing their attention to the immediate execution of the judicial decisions, is awaited.

- 1 case against Poland

H46-734 43425 Skałka, judgment of 27/05/03, final on 27/08/03, rectified on 16/09/03

The case concerns the criminal conviction (in 1995) of the applicant to 8 months imprisonment for “insulting a State authority”, an offence defined under Article 237 of the 1969 Criminal code, in force at the relevant time. The European Court found this sanction to be disproportionate with the offence committed by the applicant who, while serving a prison sentence, wrote an insulting letter to the Penitentiary Division of the Regional Court – a letter which was not made public and in which the applicant expressed his anger and frustration, yet made no concrete complaints (violation of Article 10).

Individual measures: At the 863rd meeting (December 2003), the Polish Delegation confirmed that the applicant may request the reopening of the criminal proceedings brought against him, by invoking the violation of the Convention found by the European Court.

General measures: The confirmation of the publication and of the wide dissemination of the judgment of the European Court to the Polish courts is awaited.

Sub-section 5.3

- 1 case against Portugal

H46-798 44872 Magalhães Pereira, judgment of 26/02/02, final on 26/05/02

The case concerns the failure to respect the applicant’s right to a regular review of the lawfulness of his detention on psychiatric grounds (from 01/03/1998 to 20/01/2000) (violation of Article 5§4). The case also concerns the fact that the applicant was, until October 2000, denied appropriate legal assistance in proceedings to examine the lawfulness of his detention (violation of Article 5§4).

Individual measures: By decision of 24/05/2002, the Porto court ordered the applicant’s release.

General measures: Written confirmation of the publication of the judgment of the European Court is still awaited.

- 1 case against Slovenia

H46-799 42320 Belinger, judgment of 13/06/02 – Friendly settlement

The case concerns the length of civil proceedings which were still pending at national level when the European Court issued its judgment (complaint under Article 6§1).

The Slovenian Delegation informed the Committee of the measures taken in order to avoid similar complaints during the examination of the Majarič case (judgment of 08/02/2000) for which the Secretariat is preparing a final resolution.

General measure: Publication of the judgment of the European Court was requested at the 803rd meeting (July 2002). Its confirmation is awaited.

SUB-SECTION 5.4 – OTHER MEASURES

No new case

SECTION 6 - CASES PRESENTED WITH A VIEW TO THE PREPARATION OF A DRAFT FINAL RESOLUTION:

(See Addendum 6 for part or all these cases)

Action

At the time of issuing the present annotated Agenda and Order of Business, the information available on the measures taken in these cases seemed to allow the preparation of draft resolutions putting an end to their examination by the Committee of Ministers (if necessary, supplementary information on some or all the cases listed below will appear in an Addendum 6). As regards the cases appearing under sub-section 6.1, the Deputies are invited to examine the new information available with a view to evaluating whether a draft final resolution can be prepared. As regards cases listed under sub-section 6.2, the Deputies are invited to note that the elaboration of a draft final resolution, in cooperation with the Delegation of the respondent State, is under way. In both cases, the Deputies are invited to postpone consideration of these cases to their next meeting.

Sub-section 6.1

Cases in which the new information available since the last examination appears to allow the preparation of a draft final resolution

- 2 cases against Austria

H46-800 39392+ L. and V., judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

The case concerns the fact that former Article 209 of the Austrian Criminal Code incriminated consensual male homosexual acts of adults with teenagers aged between 14 and 18 years old whereas, at the material time, consensual heterosexual or lesbian acts between adults and persons over 14 years of age were not punishable. The European Court found that the fact of keeping Article 209 in force and the sentencing of the applicants under this article, in 1997, to suspended terms of 8 and 6 months’ imprisonment constituted a discriminatory restriction of their right to private life (violation of Article 14 combined with Article 8).

General measures: Article 209 was repealed on 10/07/2002, with effect from 14/08/2002. The new article 207b of the Criminal Code penalises sexual acts between adults and teenagers in specific circumstances and is applicable irrespective of whether the sexual acts at issue are heterosexual, homosexual or lesbian.

Individual measures: By letter of 7/01/2004, the Austrian delegation informed the Secretariat that in the case of L., the Austrian Supreme Court admitted in November 2003 the applicant’s request for the reopening of the proceedings based on Article 363a of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After quashing the previous conviction, the Supreme Court rejected the Attorney General’s request to apply the new Article 207b of the Criminal Code retroactively and acquitted the applicant. Thus all the consequences of the former conviction were erased and the applicant was fully rehabilitated. All the files concerning his case were also destroyed.

H46-801 37295 Yildiz M., G. and Y., judgment of 31/10/02, final on 31/01/03[102]

- 1 case against the Czech Republic

H46-675 36541 Bucheň, judgment of 26/11/02, final on 26/02/03

The case concerns the suspension as from 01/01/1994, under Law no 304/1993, of the payment of a retirement allowance owed to the applicant in his capacity of former military judge, due to the fact that he was assigned as a judge to an ordinary court. The European Court found that there had been a difference in treatment between the applicant and various other categories of former members of the armed forces, and especially with regard to other former military judges and prosecutors who continued receiving the retirement allowance even after having left the army and having started to work as civil judges. According to the Court, this difference of treatment of various categories of former members of the armed forces and with respect to the applicant was not based on “any objective or reasonable justification” within the meaning of Article 14 of the Convention (violation of Article 14 combined with Article 1 of Protocol 1).

Individual and/or general measures: The Czech authorities have stated that the Ministry of Defence has decided, on the basis of the primacy of international law over domestic law, to end the suspension of the payment of the allowance at issue to the applicant, as well as to all the other persons (a dozen) covered by the impugned measure.

Moreover, the judgment of the European Court has been published on the Internet site of the Ministry of Justice.

Sub-section 6.1

- 11 cases against France

- Excessive length of proceedings before the administrative courts

H46-802 37565 Sapl, judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02

H46-803 54367 Bufferne, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 09/07/03

H46-804 43719 Scotti, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 21/05/03

H46-805 58600 Benhaim, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03

H46-806 49544 Butel, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46-807 50368 Heidecker-Carpentier, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

H46-808 43969 Kroliczek, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-809 39282 Laidin Monique No. 2, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/2003

H46-810 48954 Traore, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 17/03/03

H46-811 46215 Faivre, judgment of 17/12/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-812 52116 Vieziez, judgment of 15/10/02, final on 21/05/03

These cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings before administrative courts, introduced between 1988 and 1997 and having lasted from 3 years and 8 months for one degree of jurisdiction and more than 10 years and 7 months for three degrees of jurisdiction (violations of Article 6§1).

The first eight cases concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before administrative courts. The Laidin Monique No. 2 case also concerns the excessive length of certain civil proceedings introduced in June 1989 before the civil courts: more than 11 years and 4 months, for 3 degrees (violation article 6§1). This case further concerns the fact that, at the time when the application was lodged, no effective remedy was available in this respect either in administrative law (see in this regard the Lutz judgment of 26/03/2002, final on 26/06/2002, see Section 6.2) or in civil law (on this point the European Court noted that application for compensation under Article L 781-1 of the Code of Judicial Organisation had, since the facts at the origin of the present case, acquired sufficient legal certainty to be considered effective – see the Court’s decisions in Giummarra and others (12/06/2001) and Mifsud (11/09/2002)) (violations of Article 13).

The cases of Faivre and Vieziez concern the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning criminal charges before the administrative courts.

Individual measures: The acceleration of the proceedings which are still pending has been requested. In the Sapl case, on 08/07/2003, the Secretariat received a letter from the applicant’s counsel indicating that the pre-trial investigation stage before the Lyon Administrative Court of Appeal (seised in 1998) was not yet closed, and that the registry of this court could not say whether or not the case would be heard before the end of 2003. By letter dated 10/10/2003 the French delegation explained that this case has been allocated to a new rapporteur at the beginning of August 2003 and that the magistrates’ attention has been drawn to the fact that France had already been condemned because of the length of the proceedings.

General measures: Law No.2002-1138 of 09/09/2002 (Loi d’orientation et de programmation pour la justice), which applies to all administrative courts, aims at accelerating the functioning of administrative justice, and more precisely at reducing the time taken to deliver a judgment to one year. It plans an increase of the number of court staff, both magistrates (210 posts, i.e.+25% of the present workforce) and members of the registry (270 posts). In application of this law, 59 magistrates of administrative tribunals and administrative courts of appeal were recruited in 2002, 74 in 2003 and 85 will be recruited in 2004.This law also authorises the recruitment of “justice assistants” (assistants de justice), for members of tribunals, courts of appeal and the Council of State. Furthermore, this law provides the creation of three new courts in five years; the creation of a new administrative court of appeal is planned for September 2004. It also grants 114 million euros to administrative courts and the Council of State for ordinary expenditure and 60 million euros in “programme authorisations” (autorisations de programme). These sums will be used in particular to improve the computer system and to extend the buildings of the existing courts). Finally, procedural measures have been taken. Decree No.2003-543 of 24/06/2003 concerning the administrative courts of appeal and modifying the regulatory part of the Code of Administrative Justice entails two essential innovations relating to appeal proceedings: first, it is now compulsory to be represented by a lawyer before the administrative court of appeal; secondly, leave to appeal has been withdrawn concerning certain issues. These measures should enable the administrative courts both to reduce their stocks of old cases more quickly and reduce the flow of incoming cases. The French authorities consider that these measures will efficiently prevent similar violations of the Convention.

Sub-section 6.1

- 1 case against Germany

H46-645 30943 Sahin, judgment of 08/07/03 - Grand Chamber

The case concerns a domestic court’s dismissal, in 1998, of the applicant’s request for access to his child, born out of wedlock in June 1988. The European Court found that the applicant had suffered discriminatory treatment in that, at the time of the facts, Section 1634§1 of the Civil Code provided unjustifiably different criteria making it more difficult for fathers of children born out of wedlock to obtain custody of their children than for divorced fathers of children born in wedlock (violation of Article 14, taken together with Article 8).

Individual measures: The German delegation has informed the Secretariat that the applicant may at any time submit a (new) request to the competent authorities for access to his child.

General measures: Measures have been adopted following the Elsholz case ResDH(2001)155). In addition, the judgment of the European Court has been published in the Zeitschrift fϋr das gesamte Familienrecht, (Vol. 6, 2002, pages 381 to 386 and 396).

- 2 cases against Italy

H46-217 33354 Lucà, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

The case concerns the unfairness of certain criminal proceedings which resulted in the applicant’s conviction in 1994 to eight years and four months’ imprisonment. His conviction was based exclusively on statements made before the trial by a “repented” co-accused whom the applicant was not allowed to interrogate or to have interrogated (violation of Article 6§1 taken together with Article 6§3d).

This case presents similarities with the Dorigo case (Interim Resolution DH(99)258) (Section 4.1).

Individual measures: the applicant has not submitted any request in this respect.

General measures: Article 111 of the Italian Constitution, as modified in November 1999, gives constitutional rank to a number of requirements contained in Article 6 of the Convention. This new constitutional provision has been implemented by Law No. 63 of 01/03/2001, which amends inter alia Article 513 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the law now in force, pre-trial statements made without respecting the adversarial principle by co-accused persons cannot be used in proceedings against a person without his consent (unless the judge establishes that the co-accused person’s refusal to be cross-questioned in the proceedings is the result of bribery or threats). This rule applies not only to statements made in the context of the same proceedings but also to those made in other proceedings. As regards pending proceedings, Law No. 35 of 25/02/2000 provides that statements that have not been questioned by the accused person may only be used against him/her in the debate as long as they are corroborated by other evidence.

H46-683 30882 Pellegrini Maria Grazia, judgment of 20/07/01, final on 20/10/01

The case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial on account of the failure of the Italian courts to ensure that she applicant had had a fair hearing in the ecclesiastical proceedings before issuing in 1991 the authority to enforce the judgment of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota declaring the nullity of the her marriage (violation of Article 6§1).

General measures: The applicable legislation explicitly foresees, as a condition for giving the exequatur to nullity of marriage proceedings, the verification that the defence rights of the parties have been recognised in a manner compatible with the fundamental principles of Italian Law (see §§31-32 of the judgment).

The case-law review on this issue submitted by the Italian authorities indicates that these provisions are normally respected in practice by the competent courts and that, therefore, the violation found in this case has an occasional and isolated character. However, in order to prevent any possible new, similar violation, the judgment was sent out to the Presidents of the Court of Cassation and of the Courts of Appeal as well as to the Public Prosecutors of these Courts with a circular drawing their attention to the elements raised by the Court. The judgment was furthermore published in Italian and commented in several legal reviews, not least in the “Law Guide“ (Guida al diritto) supplement to the daily II Sole 24 Ore, No. 35 of 15/09/2001.

Sub-section 6.2

Cases waiting for the presentation of a draft final resolution

- 25 cases against Austria

H46-815 35021+ Kolb and others, judgment of 17/04/03, final on 17/07/03

H46-816 24430 Lanz, judgment of 31/01/02, final on 31/04/02

H46-817 36757 Jakupovic, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 06/05/23

H46-818 36519 Petschar, judgment of 17/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-819 45330+ S.L., judgment of 09/01/03, final on 09/04/03

H46-820 34994 Walter, judgment of 28/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H32-821 17291 Hortolomei, Interim Resolution DH(99)28

H46-822 37950 Franz Fischer, judgment of 29/05/01, final on 29/08/01

H46-823 38237 Sailer, judgment of 06/06/02, final on 06/09/02

H46-824 38275 W.F., judgment of 30/05/02, final on 30/08/02

H32-825 26113 Wirtschafts-Trend Zeitschriften Verlagsgesellchaft m.b.H., Interim Resolution DH(98)378

H46-826 25878 Michael Edward Cooke, judgment of 08/02/00

H46-828 28501 Pobornikoff, judgment of 03/10/00

H46-829 33501 Telfner, judgment of 20/03/01, final on 20/06/01

H46-830 29477 Eisenstecken, judgment of 03/10/00

H46-831 32899 Buchberger, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

- Length of civil proceedings

H46-832 49455 Gollner, judgment of 17/01/02, final on 17/04/02

H46-833 33505 H.E., judgment of 11/07/02, final on 06/11/02

H46-834 38536 Schreder, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 13/03/02

- Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

H46-835 31266 G.H., judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

H46-836 26297 G.S., judgment of 21/12/99

H46-837 35019 Ludescher, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-838 37075 Luksch, judgment of 13/12/01, final on 13/03/02

H46-839 33915 Walder, judgment of 30/01/01, final on 17/09/01

H46-840 42032 Widmann, judgment of 19/06/03, final on 19/09/03

- 3 cases against Belgium

H54-841 17849 S.A. Pressos Compania Naviera and others, judgment of 20/11/95, Interim Resolution DH(99)724

H54-842 25357 Aerts, judgment of 30/07/98

H46-843 49497 Teret, judgment of 15/11/02, final on 15/02/03 – Striking out

- 3 cases against Bulgaria

H32-844 30381 Mironov, Interim Resolution DH(99)352

H46-845 32438 Stefanov, judgment of 03/05/01, final on 03/08/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-846 29221 Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden, judgment of 02/10/01, final on 02/01/02

Sub-section 6.2

- 1 case against Cyprus

H46-847 29515 Larkos, judgment of 18/02/99

- 4 cases against the Czech Republic

H46-848 33071 Malhous, judgment of 12/07/01 - Grand Chamber

H46-849 33644 Český, judgment of 06/06/00, final on 06/09/00

H46-850 31315 Punzelt, judgment of 25/04/00, final on 25/07/00

H46-851 35848 Barfuss, judgment of 31/07/00, final on 31/10/00

- 2 cases against Denmark

H46-852 48470 Jensen, judgment of 14/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-853 56811 Amrollahi, judgment of 11/07/02, final on 11/10/02

- 1 case against Estonia

H46-854 37571 Veeber, No. 1, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

- 11 cases against Finland

H46-855 37801 Suominen, judgment of 01/07/03, final on 22/07/03[103]

H46-856 52529 Hyvönen, judgment of 22/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-857 31611 Nikula, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H46-858 49684 Hirvisaari, judgment of 27/09/01, final on 27/12/01

H46-859 28856 Jokela, judgment of 21/05/02, final on 21/08/02

H46-860 31764 K.P., judgment of 31/05/01, final on 05/09/01

H46-861 29346 K.S., judgment of 31/05/01, final on 12/12/01

H46-862 25702 K. and T., judgment of 12/07/01 – Grand Chamber

H46-863 30013 Türkiye iş Bankasi, judgment of 18/06/02, final on 18/09/02

H46-864 35999 Pietiläinen, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 27/01/03

H46-865 42059 Eerola, judgment of 06/05/03 - Friendly settlement

- 83 cases against France

*H46-866 36677 SA Dangeville, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 16/07/02

H46-867 34000 DuRoy and Malaurie, judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

H46-868 47160 Ezzouhdi, judgment of 13/02/01, final on 13/05/01

H32-869 26242 Lemoine Pierre, Interim Resolution DH(99)353

H32-870 31409 Riccobono, Interim Resolution DH(99)557

H46-871 37786 Debboub Husseini Ali, judgment of 09/11/99, final on 09/02/00

H46-872 24846 Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and others, judgment of 28/10/99 – Grand

Chamber

H32-873 26984 Picard, Interim Resolution DH(99)30

Sub-section 6.2

H46-874 25803 Selmouni, judgment of 28/07/99- Grand Chamber

H46-875 34406 Mazurek, judgment of 01/02/00, final on 01/05/00

H46-876 25088 Chassagnou and others, judgment of 29/04/99

H54-877 25017 Mehemi, judgment of 06/09/97

H32-878 27019 Slimane-Kaïd I

H54-879 23618 Lambert Michel, judgment of 24/08/98

H32-880 27413 Cazes, Interim Resolution DH(99)31

H46-881 25444 Pelissier and Sassi, judgment of 25/03/99

H46-882 31819+ Annoni Di Gussola, Desbordes and Omer, judgment of 14/11/00, final on 14/02/01

H46-883 42195 Mortier, judgment of 31/07/01, final on 31/10/01

H32-884 27659 Ferville, Interim Resolution DH(99)254

H32-885 28845 Venot, Interim Resolution DH(2000)19

H46-886 29507 Slimane-Kaïd II, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 17/05/00

H46-887 27362 Voisine, judgment of 08/02/00

H54-888 14032 Poitrimol, judgment of 23/11/93

H32-889 17572 A.C.

H54-890 25201 Guerin, judgment of 29/07/98

H46-891 34791 Khalfaoui, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46-892 53613 Goth, judgment of 16/05/02, final on 16/08/02

H54-893 24767 Omar, judgment of 29/07/98

H46-894 31070 Van Pelt, judgment of 23/05/00, final on 23/08/00

H32-895 20282 G.B. I

H32-896 23321 Delbec I, Interim Resolution DH(98)15

H46-897 32911+ Meftah, Adoud and Bosoni, judgment of 26/07/02 - Grand Chamber

- Length of civil proceedings

H46-898 53118 Boiseau, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

H46-899 35589 Kanoun, judgment of 03/10/00, final on 03/01/01

H46-900 41943 L.L., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-901 47575 Marks and Ordinateur Express, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

H32-902 29877 Pauchet and others - Interim Resolution DH(98)100

H46-903 44069 G.B. II, judgment of 02/10/01, final on 02/01/02

H46-904 39626 Granata, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-905 44952+ Van der Kar and Lissaur Van West, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-906 50267 Kornblum, judgment of 27/05/03, final on 27/08/03

- Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

H46-907 39273 Vermeersch, judgment of 22/05/01, final on 22/08/01

H54-908 36313 Henra, judgment of 29/04/98

H54-909 36317 Leterme, judgment of 29/04/98

H54-910 32217 Pailot, judgment of 22/04/98

H54-911 33441 Richard, judgment of 22/04/98

H46-912 48215 Lutz, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 26/06/02

H32-913 31842 Darmagnac Pierre V, Interim Resolution DH(98)388

H46-914 42189 H.L., judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-915 40493 Jacquie and Ledun, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H46-916 42276 Julien Lucien, judgment of 14/11/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-917 57753 C.K., judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-918 44211 Lacombe, judgment of 07/11/00, final on 07/02/01

H46-919 43288 Mahieu, judgment of 19/06/01

H32-920 25309 Maljean, Interim Resolution DH(97)239

H46-921 47007 Arnal, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-922 51575 Baillard, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 04/09/02

H46-923 44617 Leray and others, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-924 46708 Zaheg, judgment of 19/02/02, final on 19/05/02

Sub-section 6.2

- Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the Conseil d’Etat

H46-925 38249 Arvois, judgment of 23/11/99, final on 23/02/00

H46-926 28660 Ballestra, judgment of 12/12/00, final on 12/03/01

H46-927 33207 Blaisot C. and M., judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-928 36932 Caillot, judgment of 04/06/99, final on 04/09/99

H46-929 42401 Camps, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 09/04/01

H46-930 54757 Chaufour, judgment of 19/03/02, final on 19/06/02

H46-931 41449 Durrand I, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

H46-932 42038 Durrand II, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

H46-933 54596 Epoux Goletto, judgment of 04/02/03, final on 04/05/03

H46-934 30979 Frydlender, judgment of 27/06/00

H46-935 48205+ Gentilhomme, Schaff-Benhadji and Zerouki, judgment of 14/05/02,

final on 14/08/02

H46-936 44066 Grass, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-937 41001 Joseph-Gilbert Garcia, judgment of 26/09/00, final on 26/12/00

H46-938 37387 Lambourdiere, judgment of 02/08/00, final on 02/11/00

H46-939 39996 Ouendeno, judgment of 16/04/02, final on 10/07/02

H32-940 32510 Peter, Interim Resolution DH(99)132

H46-941 33989 Thery, judgment of 01/02/00, final on 01/05/00

H46-942 38042 Zanatta, A. and J.-B., judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

- Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the labour courts

H32-943 39966 De Cantelar, Interim Resolution DH(2000)86

H46-944 38398 Leclercq, judgment of 28/11/00, final on 28/02/01

H46-945 47194 Leboeuf, judgment of 26/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-946 44791 Marcel, judgment of 09/04/02 – Friendly settlement

- Length of criminal proceedings

H46-947 44070 Beljanski, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-948 33951 Caloc, judgment of 20/07/00

- 3 cases against Germany

H46-949 37928 Stambuk, judgment of 17/10/02, final on 17/01/03

H46-950 39547 Niederböster, judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03

H46-951 33900 P.S., judgment of 20/12/01, final on 04/09/02

- 47 cases against Greece

H46-952 50776+ Agga No. 2, judgment of 17/10/02, final on 17/01/03

H46-953 47734 Adamogiannis, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02

H46-954 46356 Smokovitis and others, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

H54-955 19233+ Tsirlis and Kouloumpas, judgment of 29/05/97

H54-956 24348 Grigoriades, judgment of 25/11/97

H54-957 23372+ Larissis and others, judgment of 24/02/98

H54-958 18748 Manoussakis and others, judgment of 25/09/96

H46-959 38178 Serif, judgment of 14/12/99, final on 14/03/00

H46-960 34369 Thlimmenos, judgment of 06/04/00

H46-962 37098 Antonakopoulos, Vortsela and Antonakopoulou, judgment of 14/12/99,

final on 21/03/00

Sub-section 6.2

H54-963 21522 Georgiadis Anastasios, judgment of 29/05/97

H46-964 41209 Georgiadis Dimitrios, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H32-965 34373 Goutsos, Interim Resolution DH(99)558

H54-966 18357 Hornsby, judgment of 19/03/97

H46-967 31107 Iatridis, judgments of 25/03/99 and 19/10/00 (Article 41) – Grand Chamber

H46-968 53478 Sajtos, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H32-969 32397 Sinnesael, Interim Resolution DH(99)130

H46-970 43622 Malama, judgment of 01/03/01, final on 05/09/01 and judgment of 18/04/02

(Article 41), final on 18/07/02

H46-971 25701 Former king of Greece, Princess Irene and Princess Ekaterini, judgment of 23/11/00 and judgment of 28/11/02 (Article 41) - Grand Chamber

H46-972 64825 Halatas, judgment of 26/06/03 - Friendly settlement

- Length of civil proceedings

H46-973 30342 Academy Trading Ltd and others, judgment of 04/04/00

H46-974 40434 Kosmopolis S. A., judgment of 29/03/01, final on 29/06/01

H46-975 56625 Koumoutsea, judgment of 06/03/03, final on 06/06/03

H46-976 46380 LSI Information Technologies, judgment of 20/12/01, final on 20/03/02

H46-977 52464 Papadopoulos Georgios, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 21/05/03

- Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

H46-978 42079 E.H., judgment of 25/10/01, final on 27/03/02

H46-979 41459 Fatourou, judgment of 03/08/00, final on 03/11/00

H46-980 41867 Messochoritis, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01

H54-981 20323 Pafitis and others, judgment of 26/02/98

H46-982 38971 Protopapa and Marangou, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H46-983 38704 Savvidou, judgment of 01/08/00, final on 01/11/00

H32-984 34569 Société anonyme Dimitrios Koutsoumbos, société technique, commerciale et touristique, Interim Resolution DH(99)271

H46-985 47891 Spentzouris, judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02

H46-986 49215 Angelopoulos, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

H46-987 46806 Sakellaropoulos, judgment of 11/04/02, final on 11/07/02

H46-988 40437 Tsingour, judgment of 06/07/00, final on 06/10/00

H46-989 38459 Varipati, judgment of 26/10/99, final on 26/01/00

H46-990 55611 Xenopoulos, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 04/09/02

H46-991 62530 Vitaliotou, judgment of 30/01/03 - Friendly settlement

- Length of criminal proceedings

H46-992 37439 Agga, judgment of 25/01/00, final on 25/04/00

H46-993 56599 Ipsilanti, judgment of 06/03/03, final on 06/06/03

H46-994 52848 Papadopoulos Ioannis, judgment of 09/01/03, final on 21/05/03

H46-995 55753 Papazafiris, judgment of 23/01/03, final on 23/04/03

H54-996 19773 Philis 2, judgment of 27/06/97

H54-997 28523 Portington, judgment of 23/09/98

H32-998 32857 Stamoulakatos Nicholas I, Interim Resolution DH(99)49

H32-999 24453 Tarighi Wageh Dashti

- 1 case against Hungary

H46-1000 52727 Theiszler, judgment of 30/09/03 - Friendly settlement

Sub-section 6.2

- 17 cases against Italy

H46-1001 23969 Mattoccia, judgment of 25/07/00

H46-1002 33993 Messina No. 3, judgment of 24/10/02, final on 21/05/03

H46-1003 41221 Troiani Marcello II, judgment of 06/12/01, final on 10/07/02

H46-1004 31227 Ambruosi, judgment of 19/10/00, final on 19/01/01

H32-1005 16609 Intrieri, Interim Resolution DH(97)50

H54-1006 14025 Zubani, judgments of 07/08/96 and 16/06/99

H46-1007 34896 Craxi II, judgment of 05/12/02, final on 05/03/03

H32-1008 39175 Sileo, Interim Resolution DH(99)524

H46-1009 40877 Cordova Agostino No. 1, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

H46-1010 45649 Cordova Agostino No. 2, judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03

H46-1011 43269 Leoni, judgment of 26/10/00, final on 04/04/01

- Failure to enforce judicial eviction orders against tenants

H46-1012 62135 Attene, judgment of 22/05/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1013 37888 Cecchi Ida, judgment of 09/01/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1014 34435 Di Tullio, judgment of 09/01/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1015 35969 Giannatiempo, judgment of 17/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1016 55674 Matta, judgment of 10/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1017 43616 Tamma, judgment of 10/04/03 - Friendly settlement

- 1 case against Latvia

H46-1018 50108 Kulakova, judgment of 18/10/01 – Friendly settlement

- 10 cases against Lithuania

H46-1019 48297 Butkevičius, judgment of 26/03/02, final on 26/06/02

H46-1020 37975 Graužinis, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01

H46-1021 36743 Grauslys, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 10/01/01

H46-1022 34578 Jėčius, judgment of 31/07/00

H46-1023 47679 Stašaitis, judgment of 21/03/02, final on 21/06/02

H46-1024 42095 Daktaras, judgment of 10/10/00, final on 18/01/01

H46-1025 44558 Valašinas, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01

H46-1026 44800 Puzinas, judgment of 14/03/02, final on 14/06/02

H46-1027 55479 Šlezěvičius, judgment of 13/11/01, final on 13/02/02

H46-1028 47698 Birutis and others, judgment of 28/03/02, final on 28/06/02

- 3 cases against Malta

H46-1029 25642 Aquilina, judgment of 29/04/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-1030 25644 T.W., judgment of 29/04/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-1031 35892 Sabeur Ben Ali, judgment of 29/06/00, final on 29/09/00

- 3 cases against Norway

H46-1032 30287 Hammern, judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

H46-1033 29327 O., judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

H46-1034 56568 Y., judgment of 11/02/03, final on 11/05/03

Sub-section 6.2

- 10 cases against the Netherlands

H46-1035 25989 Van Vlimmeren and Van Ilverenbeek, judgment of 26/09/00

H46-1036 32605 Rutten, judgment of 24/07/01, final on 24/10/01

H46-1037 31465 Sen, judgment of 21/12/01, final on 21/03/02

H32-1038 14084 R.V. and others - Interim Resolution DH(2000)25

H46-1039 28369 Camp and Bourimi, judgment of 03/10/00

H46-1040 29192 Ciliz, judgment of 11/07/00

H46-1041 31725 Köksal, judgment of 20/03/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1042 33258 Holder, judgment of 05/06/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1043 34549 Meulendijks, judgment of 14/05/02, final on 14/08/02

H46-1044 26668 Visser, judgment of 14/02/02

- 24 cases against Poland

H46-4 27785 Włoch, judgment of 19/10/00, final on 22/01/01

H46-1045 6901 Sagan, judgment of 24/06/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1046 61888 Wysocka-Cysarz, judgment of 01/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1047 29537+ Radaj, judgment of 28/11/02, final on 28/02/03

H46-1048 35489 Sałapa, judgment of 19/12/02, final on 19/03/03

H46-1049 31382 Kurzac, judgment of 22/02/01, final on 22/05/01

H46-1050 38670 Dewicka, judgment of 04/04/00, final on 04/07/00

H46-1051 33310 H.D., judgment of 20/06/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1052 24244 Migoń, judgment of 25/06/02, final on 25/09/02

H46-1053 32499 Z.R., judgment of 15/01/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-1054 25874 Kawka, judgment of 09/01/01

H46-1055 55106 Górka, judgment of 05/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1056 67165 Sędek, judgment of 06/05/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1057 71891 Hałka and others, judgment of 02/07/02, final on 02/10/02

H46-1058 64120 Niziuk, judgment of 15/07/03 - Friendly settlement

- Length of civil proceedings

H46-1059 58780 Dragan, judgment of 15/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1060 53551 Godlewski, judgment of 08/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1061 49033 Janowski No. 2, judgment of 23/09/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1062 75098 Kledzik, judgment of 23/09/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1063 76158 M.M. and E.M.M., judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1064 8205 Mikulska, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1065 71009 Nowakowski, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1066 45957 Pawlinkowska, judgment of 08/07/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1067 67162 Skóra, judgment of 01/07/03 - Friendly settlement

- 9 cases against Portugal

H46-1068 29813+ Almeida Garret, Mascarenhas Falcao and others, judgment of 11/01/00 and

judgment of 10/04/01

H46-9 53937 Ferreira Alves, Limited, judgment of 27/02/03, final on 27/05/03

H46-10 49671 Ferreira da Nave, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

H46-11 48956 Gil Leal Pereira, judgment of 31/10/02, final on 31/01/03

H46-12 49279 Koncept-Conselho em Comunicação e Sensibilização de Públicos, Lda, judgment of 31/10/02, final on 31/01/03

H46-1069 37698 Lopes Gomes da Silva, judgment of 28/09/00, final on 28/12/00

H54-1070 15777 Matos and Silva and 2 others, judgment of 16/09/96

H46-13 53793 Morais Sarmento, judgment of 03/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1071 33290 Salgueiro Da Silva Mouta, judgment of 21/12/99, final on 21/03/00

Sub-section 6.2

- 3 cases against Romania

H54-1072 27053 Vasilescu, judgment of 22/05/98, Interim Resolution DH(99)676

H54-1073 27273 Petra, judgment of 23/09/98

H32-1074 32922 C.C.M.C., Interim Resolution DH(99)333

- 21 cases against the Slovak Republic

H46-1075 24530 Vodeničarov, judgment of 21/12/00

H46-1076 29032 Feldek, judgment of 12/07/01, final on 12/10/01

H46-1077 32686 Marônek, judgment of 19/04/01, final on 19/07/01

H46-1078 41384 Varga, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

- Length of civil proceedings

H46-1079 34753 Jóri, judgment of 09/11/00, final on 09/02/01

H46-1080 40058 Gajdúšek, judgment of 18/12/01, final on 18/03/02

H46-1081 47804 Havala, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46-1082 39752 Matoušková, judgment of 12/11/02, final on 12/02/03

H46-1083 48672 Nemec and others, judgment of 15/11/01, final on 15/02/02

H46-1084 40345 Stančiak, judgment of 12/04/01, final on 12/07/01

H46-1085 44965 Molnárová and Kochanová, judgment of 04/03/03, final on 04/06/03

H46-1086 38794 J.K., judgment of 23/07/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1087 62171 Lancz, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1088 41783 Polovka, judgment of 21/01/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1089 46843 Remšíková, judgment of 17/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1090 65640 Rotrekl, judgment of 08/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1091 63999 Rusnáková, judgment of 27/05/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1092 56452 Nezbeda, judgment of 29/04/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1093 62191 Sisák, judgment of 27/05/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1094 57985 Slovák II, judgment of 03/06/03 - Friendly settlement

- Length of criminal proceedings

H46-1095 43377 Žiačik, judgment of 07/01/03, final on 07/04/03

- 2 cases against Slovenia

H46-1096 29462 Rehbock, judgment of 28/11/00

H46-1097 28400 Majarič, judgment of 08/02/00

- 12 cases against Switzerland

H46-1098 41202 Müller, judgment of 05/11/02, final on 05/02/03

H46-1099 33958 Wettstein, judgment of 21/12/00, final on 21/03/01

H46-1100 27798 Amann, judgment of 16/02/00 - Grand Chamber

H54-1101 23224 Kopp, judgment of 25/03/98

H46-1102 54273 Boultif, judgment of 02/08/01, final on 02/11/01

H46-1103 33499 Ziegler, judgment of 21/02/02, final on 21/05/02

H46-1104 27426 G.B., judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

H46-1105 28256 M.B., judgment of 30/11/00, final on 01/03/01

H32-1106 27613 P.B., Interim Resolution ResDH(2000)83

H54-1107 19800 R.M.D., judgment of 26/09/97 - Interim Resolution DH(99)678

H54-1108 20919 E.L., R.L. and O.-L., judgment of 29/08/97, Interim Resolution DH(99)111

H54-1109 19958 A.P., M.P. and T.P., judgment of 29/08/97, Interim Resolution DH(99)110

Sub-section 6.2

- 74 cases against Turkey

H46-1110 40035 Jabari, judgment of 11/07/00, final on 11/10/00

H46-1111 37021 Avcı Zeynep, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 09/07/03

H46-1112 30944 Öcal, judgment of 10/10/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1113 29295+ Ecer and Zeyrek, judgment of 27/02/01, final on 27/05/01

H46-1114 34686 Sürek Kamil Tekin, judgment of 14/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1115 29495 Erdemli, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/10/01

H46-1116 24932 Kaplan, judgment of 26/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-1117 24669 Karataş and Boğa, judgment of 17/10/00 - Friendly settlement

H46-1118 31249 Gündüz and others, judgment of 14/11/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1119 25144 Sadak Selim and others, judgment of 11/06/02, final on 06/11/02

- Independence and impartiality of the State security courts

H46-496 43818 N.K., judgment of 30/01/03, final on 30/04/03, rectified on 18/02/03

H46-1120 42739 Özel Yaşar, judgment of 07/11/02, final on 07/02/03

H46-1121 29851 Zana, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

H46-1122 41316 Atça and others, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 06/05/03

H46-1123 59659 Özdemir Tekin, judgment of 06/02/03, final on 06/05/03

H46-1124 28018 Kaya Yusuf, judgment of 24/07/03 - Friendly settlement

- Action of the Turkish security forces

H46-1125 31882 Çakmak, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1126 24947 Ekinci Lalihan, judgment of 05/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1127 31849 İşçi, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1128 24937 Koç Fırat, judgment of 05/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1129 24933 Kürküt, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1130 31733 Tuncay and Ozlem Kaya, judgment of 08/11/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1131 28505 Ülger, judgment of 28/03/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-1132 28011 Yeşiltepe, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

- Length of the detention on remand / on custody

H46-1133 29863 Barut, judgment of 24/06/03 - Friendly settlement

H46-1134 34481 Filiz and Kalkan, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-1135 31850 Günay and others, judgment of 27/09/01, final on 27/12/01

H46-1136 31877 Gündoğan Halil, judgment of 10/10/02, final on 10/01/03

H46-1137 29296 İğdeli, judgment of 20/06/02, final on 20/09/02

H46-1138 29862 Bağci and Murğ, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1139 32450 Çaloğlu, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1140 31896 Değerli, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1141 29866+ Demir C., Demir M. and Gül, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1142 29883+ Fidan, Çağro and Özarslaner, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1143 31787 Göktaş and others, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1144 28013+ Karatepe and Kırt, judgment of 17/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1145 34499 Kortak, judgment of 31/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1146 36971 Kuray, judgment of 26/11/02 - Friendly settlement

H46-1147 31895 Morsümbül, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1148 30495 Mutlu and Yildiz, judgment of 10/07/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1149 28014+ Okuyucu, Kara and Bilmen, judgment of 17/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1150 30453 Özata and others, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1151 29425 Özçelik and others, judgment of 10/07/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1152 36760 Şanlı and Erol, judgment of 22/05/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1153 37191 Yildirim and others, judgment of 25/09/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1154 34684 Yolcu, judgment of 05/02/02 – Friendly settlement

H46-1155 35980 Z.E., judgment of 07/06/01 - Friendly settlement

H46-1156 25756 Dalkılıç, judgment of 05/12/02, final on 05/03/03

H46-1157 24737+ Satık, Camlı, Satık and Maraşlı, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

Sub-section 6.2

- Length of criminal proceedings

H46-1158 31880 Adıyaman, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1159 32964 Akçam, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1160 33362 Akyazı, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1161 29280 Başpınar, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1162 29913 Binbir, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1163 26480 Bürkev, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1164 29912 Çilengir, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1165 32981 Dede and others, judgment of 07/05/02, final on 07/08/02

H46-1166 29699 Dinleten, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1167 31891 Genç, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1168 39428 İnan, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1169 28291 Kanbur, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1170 32990 Karademir, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1171 32987 Keskin, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1172 29360 Ketenoğlu Gülşen and Ketenoğlu Halil Yasin, judgment of 25/09/01,

final on 25/12/01

H46-1173 29700 Metinoğlu, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1174 29701 Özcan Süleyman, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1175 31960 Pekdaş, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1176 31961 Şahin Metin, judgment of 25/09/01, final on 25/12/01

H46-1177 29702 Sarıtaç, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1178 29911 Uygur, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

H46-1179 31834 Yağız Hasan, judgment of 30/10/01, final on 30/01/02

H46-1180 29703 Zülal, judgment of 07/02/02, final on 07/05/02

- Length of proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before the administrative courts

H46-1181 29921 Büker, judgment of 24/10/00, final on 24/01/01

- Delays by the administration in paying additional compensation for expropriation and the applicable rate of default interest

H46-643 35983 Gür, judgment of 24/07/03 - Friendly settlement

- 23 cases against the United Kingdom

H46-1182 32771 Cuscani, judgment of 24/09/02, final on 24/12/02

H46-1183 39393 M.G., judgment of 24/09/02, final on 24/12/02

H46-1184 39197 Foley, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

H46-1185 36533 Atlan A. and T., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

H46-1186 48521 Armstrong, judgment of 16/07/02, final on 16/10/02

H46-1187 24724 T., judgment of 16/12/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-1188 24888 V., judgment of 16/12/99 - Grand Chamber

H46-1189 45276 Hilal, judgment of 06/03/01, final on 06/06/01

H54-1190 24839 Bowman, judgment of 19/02/98

H32-1191 26109 Santa Cruz Ruiz, Interim Resolution DH(99)131

H46-1192 28901 Rowe and Davis, judgment of 16/02/00

H46-1193 35718 Condron, judgment of 02/05/00, final on 02/08/00

H46-1194 33274 Foxley, judgment of 20/06/00, final on 20/09/00

H46-1195 39360 S.B.C., judgment of 19/06/01, final on 19/09/01

H54-1196 20605 Halford, judgment of 25/06/97 - Interim Resolution DH(1999)725

H46-1197 36670 Duyonov and others, judgment of 02/10/01 – Friendly settlement

H46-1198 32340 Curley, judgment of 28/03/00, final on 28/06/00

H46-1200 37471 William Faulkner, judgment of 04/06/02, final on 04/09/02

H46-1201 52770 Brown, judgment of 29/07/03 - Friendly settlement

Sub-section 6.2

- Interference in private life due to covert police surveillance

H46-1206 35394 Khan, judgment of 12/05/00, final on 05/10/00

H32-1202 27237 Govell, Interim Resolution DH(98)212

H46-1203 44787 P.G. and J.H., judgment of 25/09/01, final on 25/12/01

H46-1204 47114 Taylor-Sabori, judgment of 22/10/02, final on 22/01/03

PREPARATION OF THE NEXT DH MEETING
(879th MEETING, 5-6 April 2004)

(See Addendum Preparation of the next meeting)

Action

The Deputies are invited to approve the preliminary lists of items to be examined at the next DH meeting, which appears in Addendum Preparation of the next meeting to the present annotated agenda and order of business.

871st meeting (DH) – 10 and 11 February 2004

APPENDIX 2

871st MEETING (DH) 10 and 11 February 2004

879th meeting DH (5 and 6 April 2004)
Preliminary list of items for consideration

——————————————

The draft annotated Agenda and Order of Business will be issued on 25 March 2004
The classification of the cases in sections is at this stage purely on an indicative basis.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION. 132

GENERAL QUESTIONS. 138

SECTION 1 - FINAL RESOLUTIONS. 139

SECTION 2 - NEW CASES. 144

SECTION 3 - JUST SATISFACTION. 151

SECTION 4 - CASES RAISING SPECIFIC QUESTION (INDIVIDUAL MEASURES,
MEASURES NOT YET DEFINED OR SPECIAL PROBLEMS) 171

SECTION 5 - SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED.. 229

SECTION 6 - CASES PRESENTED WITH A VIEW TO THE PREPARATION
OF A DRAFT FINAL RESOLUTION: 236

PREPARATION OF THE NEXT DH MEETING (885th MEETING, 1-2 June 2004) 250

Additional documents

Addendum General Questions

Addendum 1 - Final Resolutions

Addendum 4 – Cases raising special questions

Addendum Preparation of the next DH meeting (885th meeting, 1-2 June 2004)

INTRODUCTION

At the present Human Rights meeting, the Committee of Ministers, sitting at the level of the Ministers’ Deputies, will supervise the execution of some .. cases in accordance with Article 46, § 2, of the Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Supervision is carried out in accordance with the Rules for the application of this Article adopted by the Deputies on 11 January 2001[104]. The Directorate General of Human Rights (Department for the execution of the judgments of the Court) and the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers provide advice and assistance to the Deputies in the fulfilment of their functions under the Convention. Information and communications relating to the cases should be addressed to these departments.

Below follows a short comparative survey of the meeting (the information on the nature of the cases in the different sections is described after the table):

		Meetings
Sections	879		871	863	854	847	841	834	827	819	810	803
General Questions												-
1.1			2	3	5	2	3	4	8	2	12	0
1.2			5	46	3	5	4	53	2	0	6	11
1.3			6	-	2	8	15	47	18	4	11	4
1.4			2	12	11	10	17	56	44	10	36	25
2			66	131	114	98	76	99	52	108	154	277
3.1.a			430	466	486	0	469	439	546	677	638	568
3.1.b			91	118	188	0	170	165	129	110	89	116
3.1.c			31	31	27	0	40	40	39	38	39	36
3.2			-	-	0	0	-	-	-	-	-	1
4.1			35	18	10	4	10	15	6	15	17	15
4.2			137	196	289	101	82	156	78	116	112	91
4.3			4	122	73	4	5	123	2174	2155	5	71
5.1			38	67	40	4	39	33	25	32	21	13
5.2			2	6	1	1	-	1	0	1	-	0
5.3			7	7	6	3	4	7	5	11	7	16
5.4			-	1	0	0	-	0	0	0	-	0
6.1			19	18	8	375	372	355	406	377	318	351
6.2			391	365	391	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total of the cases on the Agenda[105]			1193	1491	1559	615	1276	1479	3151	3186	1456	1595
Total of final resolutions submitted			15	61	21	25	39	160	72	16	65	40
Total of new cases			66	131	115	98	76	99	52	108	154	277
Total of pending cases			3545	3540	3448	3352	3312	3380	3370	3327	3276	3187

SECTION 1 – FINAL RESOLUTIONS

In the cases appearing under this heading the Deputies are invited to adopt draft resolutions putting an end to the supervision of execution carried out pursuant to Article 46§2 of the Convention (or former Articles 32[106] and 54 for cases decided before the entry into force of Protocol No. 11).

Sub-section 1.1. - Leading cases

Sub-section 1.2 – Cases concerning problems already solved

Sub-section 1.3 – Cases not involving general or individual measures

Contains cases which do not raise problems of a general or individual character. In these cases the mere dissemination of the judgment to the authorities directly concerned is considered sufficient.

Sub-section 1.4 – Friendly settlement and problems of a general character

No discussion of cases in Section 1 is envisaged since the examination of the different execution questions has already been carried out by the Deputies in the course of earlier meetings.

SECTION 2 – NEW CASES

The examination of new cases is in general resumed after the expiry of the 3-month time-limit normally imparted by the Court for the payment of the just satisfaction.

Discussion is envisaged mainly for cases which raise questions of individual measures or new general measures.

Dissemination of the judgments translated to all the authorities involved has been requested in all these cases.

SECTION 3 – JUST SATISFACTION

In these cases the Deputies are called upon to supervise the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court and, where required, of any default interest owed.

Sub-section 3.1 – control of payment:

3.1.a: Supervision of the payment of the capital sum of the just satisfaction as well as, where due, of default interest, in cases where the deadline for payment expired less than 6 months ago.

No discussion is envisaged of cases appearing in sub-section 3.1.a. Delegations are invited to submit written confirmation of payment to the Directorate General of Human Rights (Service for the execution of the judgments).

3.1.b: Supervision of the payment of the capital sum of the just satisfaction in cases where the deadline for payment expired more than 6 months ago.

The further examination of the cases in sub-sections 3.1 a - c depends on the information received.

Sub-section 3.2 – Decisions on just satisfaction

The examination of such cases will be resumed after the expiry of the 3 months time-limit set for payment.

SECTION 4 – CASES RAISING SPECIAL QUESTIONS

(individual measures, measures not yet defined or special problems)

Sub-section 4.1 – Supervision of individual measures only

Sub-section 4.2 - Individual measures and/or general problems

Sub-section 4.3 – Special problems

This title groups together complex cases raising special problems.

Supplementary information relating to the cases under this heading may, where necessary, be found in Addendum 4.

SECTION 5 – SUPERVISION OF GENERAL MEASURES ALREADY ANNOUNCED

Sub-section 5.1 – Legislative and/or regulatory changes

Sub-section 5.2 – Changes of courts’ case-law or of administrative practice

Sub-section 5.3 – Publication / dissemination

No discussion is envisaged under sub-section 5.3 and the Deputies are invited to present all relevant information in writing to the Directorate General of Human Rights (Service for the execution of the judgments of the Court).